Who do you believe- cops or wittnesses [Archive] - Debate Policy

revelarts

02-17-2012, 06:56 AM

darin

02-17-2012, 07:51 AM

Holy lord. For BOTH of those cases:

I pray to GOD the families SUE and get HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars - and the offending cops sent to prison.

Gunny

02-17-2012, 08:44 AM

I told myself i wasn't going to post this type of thing anymore but this just really got to me.
whos story do you believe?
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZVZSuYWeum4?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640">

</object><object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rJ_pJFPyt04?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object><object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">
</object>

Depends on who is right. I think cops get away with gorss over-use of force. If one even TRIED to slam me down the way they do on COPS they'd better have backup, and lots of it. Those fat, out of shape, donut eating tukeys couldn't take me down for shit. And I've been hit with more voltage than a taser (I'm an electrician) and that's a no sale too.

They aren't right just because they wear that uniform.

tailfins

02-17-2012, 11:31 AM

ConHog

02-17-2012, 11:44 AM

I told myself i wasn't going to post this type of thing anymore but this just really got to me.
whos story do you believe?
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZVZSuYWeum4?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640">

</object><object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rJ_pJFPyt04?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rJ_pJFPyt04?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object><object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">
</object>

In those two cases I believe the cops involved should themselves go to jail.

If you do some basic research, a lower and lower percentage of criminal cases are going to trial. There is a pattern of people being in essence severely punished for not taking a plea deal. I was reading another forum where 2 year plea deals turned into 8+ years after going to trial. If someone is charged with a crime, it's an overworked public defender versus the full resources of the government. We don't seem to live in an innocent until proven guilty society anymore.

If you can't pay the lawyer , don't do the crime.

Gunny

02-17-2012, 11:47 AM

If you do some basic research, a lower and lower percentage of criminal cases are going to trial. There is a pattern of people being in essence severely punished for not taking a plea deal. I was reading another forum where 2 year plea deals turned into 8+ years after going to trial. If someone is charged with a crime, it's an overworked public defender versus the full resources of the government. We don't seem to live in an innocent until proven guilty society anymore.

Agreed. However, I don't remember when it ever was. Those are ideas that made words, but have never been the truth. You can sit in jail for YEARS awaiting tril, innocent or not. Just because you are accused.

Cops hav eto make their cases, and prosecutors have to get convictions. Damn the facts. THAT is the society we live in.

tailfins

02-17-2012, 11:47 AM

In those two cases I believe the cops involved should themselves go to jail.

If you can't pay the lawyer , don't do the crime.

So are you saying the citizens in the two videos should be offered a plea bargain to become a convicted felon with probation and if they cannot afford an attorney be convicted plus serve lengthy prison sentences? After all, both were charged with felonies.

Especially for the younger one in Georgia, the charges filed are as violent as the physical violence and injure just as much.

Gunny

02-17-2012, 12:09 PM

So are you saying the citizens in the two videos should be offered a plea bargain to become a convicted felon with probation and if they cannot afford an attorney be convicted plus serve lengthy prison sentences? After all, both were charged with felonies.

Especially for the younger one in Georgia, the charges filed are as violent as the physical violence and injure just as much.

Nope. I haven't watched the videos. Anyone who wants to post something for me to read can feel free. I ignore videos as posts.

What I'm saying is you can just watch Cops and understand where I come from, if you want to. It takes 6-8 cops screaming at the top of their lungs as if that sort of shit works to get one guy to put his hands behinf his back? Of course, after they slam him face first to the dirt?

Kind of makes you wonder how come the cops always win, doesn't it? I haven't seen one of those fat fucks that could outrun ME. And I have bad knees and a bad shoulder. Going to be more than one of those idiots to slam ME on the ground. I'll fight first. And yelling at me? I know the stupid game. They teach it in the military as well as civilian law enforcement. I'm about as likey to comply with that as I am a vasectomy.

I guess my whole point is just how conditioned are YOU to doing what you're told? Those cops aren't going to save your life. They're going to bust you for some inocuous shit. Probably beat you in the process. Maybe they'll come along later and solve your murder. They damned sure aren't going to prevent it.

I'll save my own ass, thanks. And I damned sure ain't letting no stupid laws or cops get in the way of THAT.

trobinett

02-17-2012, 12:32 PM

LuvRPgrl

02-17-2012, 12:51 PM

I told myself i wasn't going to post this type of thing anymore but this just really got to me.
whos story do you believe?
<OBJECT style="WIDTH: 640px; HEIGHT: 390px">

</OBJECT>

Keep im cumming rev, I personally thank you. ron

ConHog

02-17-2012, 01:02 PM

Keep im cumming rev, I personally thank you. ron

I just wish he'd include more tazer videos. :laugh2:

LuvRPgrl

02-17-2012, 01:03 PM

First video: The old Vet shouldn't have touched the cop, period, end of story. The cop is mental, and should be evaluated.

Second video: cry me a bucket of tears. Too bad that the young man took his own life, nuff said.

Hope the old Vet recovers.:salute:

84 year old drunk guy?

oh my, how threatening

#2, nope, not enough said.

Can anyone say CHA CHING ?

Brings back memories of that cop in florida who ran into a woman, then said she did it, was drunk, all the while his video recorded the whole thing, and he thought it was off

my experience, cops lie more than anyone

problem is, if criminals lie, a guilty person goes free
when pigs lie, an innocent person is guilty

Thats ok for me though, we have things in motion to handle such situations anymore, cameras recording things without their knowledge, catch em lying, paybacks are a motherfucker, some cops are gonna lose their jobs, maybe they will commit suicide now..

ConHog

02-17-2012, 01:58 PM

84 year old drunk guy?

oh my, how threatening

#2, nope, not enough said.

Can anyone say CHA CHING ?

Brings back memories of that cop in florida who ran into a woman, then said she did it, was drunk, all the while his video recorded the whole thing, and he thought it was off

my experience, cops lie more than anyone

problem is, if criminals lie, a guilty person goes free
when pigs lie, an innocent person is guilty

Thats ok for me though, we have things in motion to handle such situations anymore, cameras recording things without their knowledge, catch em lying, paybacks are a motherfucker, some cops are gonna lose their jobs, maybe they will commit suicide now..

Did you reallly just imply that you hope ANYONE commits suicide? That's sad.

trobinett

02-17-2012, 02:10 PM

84 year old drunk guy?

oh my, how threatening You missed the point, try again.:slap:

#2, nope, not enough said.

Can anyone say CHA CHING ? Seems to be one of the most used terms these days, though its NEVER solved anything.

Brings back memories of that cop in florida who ran into a woman, then said she did it, was drunk, all the while his video recorded the whole thing, and he thought it was off

my experience,
cops lie more than anyone and you know that how?

problem is, if criminals lie, a guilty person goes free
when pigs lie, an innocent person is guilty

Thats ok for me though, we have things in motion to handle such situations anymore, cameras recording things without their knowledge, catch em lying, paybacks are a motherfucker, some cops are gonna lose their jobs, maybe they will commit suicide now..

Too many men, and women in uniform commit suicide. And yes, paybacks are a motherfucker.:lol:

LuvRPgrl

02-17-2012, 02:30 PM

Did you reallly just imply that you hope ANYONE commits suicide? That's sad.

you wouldnt have wished osama bin laden, or hitler wouldve committed suicide?

ConHog

02-17-2012, 02:35 PM

you wouldnt have wished osama bin laden, or hitler wouldve committed suicide?

Hitler in fact DID.

BUt , no I didn't want either of them even to take the coward's way out. Much better that they face justice.

LuvRPgrl

02-17-2012, 02:37 PM

U guys really should try; reading what I write and not what you think I wrote

You missed the point, try again.:slap: DIDNT miss anything. U think its reasonable to expect a drunk 84 year old to pose a threat with his hands, or even realize he is touching the cop, much less that he shouldnt?

Seems to be one of the most used terms these days, though its NEVER solved anything. IF true, then it just proves how stupid and arrogant cops are these days, for the most part. AND it did SOLVE many of the problems those people had.

Brings back memories of that cop in florida who ran into a woman, then said she did it, was drunk, all the while his video recorded the whole thing, and he thought it was off

my experience,
and you know that how? read MY EXPERIENCE,,,,,

Too many men, and women in uniform commit suicide. And yes, paybacks are a motherfucker.:lol:

I DIDNT say in uniform, my son is a Marine, but I will say, he is pretty disgusted at what goes on there.

LuvRPgrl

02-17-2012, 02:38 PM

Hitler in fact DID.

BUt , no I didn't want either of them even to take the coward's way out. Much better that they face justice.

you wouldnt have preferred suicide prior to 1940 and 9/11 for those two?

ConHog

02-17-2012, 02:40 PM

you wouldnt have preferred suicide prior to 1940 and 9/11 for those two?

Oh come now. You're playing what if games trying to get me to either A) say sometimes suicide is good or B) you can say ahahah you're okay with 6 million jews dying. I'm not going go to go there.

revelarts

02-17-2012, 02:47 PM

First video: The old Vet shouldn't have touched the cop, period, end of story. The cop is mental, and should be evaluated.
Cops are completely untouchable now? ANd 84 year old drunks are supposed to be self posessed enough to know this this. It's even stupid to write. WHAT in God's name makes a cop untouchable even in an friendly way by an old man. What kind of training or common sense would make any decent man in a uniform think that he was threatened by what everyone else clearly sees a a friendly gesture.
shouldn't touch a cop is BS Trobinett. Period.

And if ANy man in or out of a uniform tosse d a family membeer of yours on his head I thinked you'd want a to have him more than "evaluated".

Second video: cry me a bucket of tears. Too bad that the young man took his own life, nuff said.Hope the old Vet recovers.:salute:
Cry me.. what? Maybe we outta beat the crap out of some cops--- by mistake of course--- and see if you or they say the same. LuvRPG is on point , the problem is the cops are PAID to be the good guys, but when they do wrong they don't admit it . But they habbitually Lie then and they Charge their victems with assult next the whole dept closes ranks around them in a wall of denials and silence. it's a gang mentality and good cops who snitch on the bad ones in court or in internal investigations are busting the gangs rules. :salute:

Cops should, at bare mininum, be held to the same standards as you or me if we were to Beat the Crap outta someone for no good reason.
I hope you recover a bit more balance accessment of how people we pay and train are suppose to deal with people.

LuvRPgrl

02-17-2012, 02:49 PM

Oh come now. You're playing what if games trying to get me to either A) say sometimes suicide is good or B) you can say ahahah you're okay with 6 million jews dying. I'm not going go to go there.

cuz you are wrong and you know it. not a game.

and I didnt say I wanted anyone to commit suicide, I just want them to know how it feels.

ConHog

02-17-2012, 03:01 PM

Cops are completely untouchable now? ANd 84 year old drunks are supposed to be self posessed enough to know this this. It's even stupid to write. WHAT in God's name makes a cop untouchable even in an friendly way by an old man. What kind of training or common sense would make any decent man in a uniform think that he was threatened by what everyone else clearly sees a a friendly gesture.
shouldn't touch a cop is BS Trobinett. Period.

And if ANy man in or out of a uniform tosse d a family membeer of yours on his head I thinked you'd want a to have him "evaluated.

Cry me.. what? Maybe we outta be the crap out of some cops--- by mistake of course--- and see if you or they say the same. LuvRPG is on point , the problem is the cops are PAID to be the good guys, but when they do wrong they don't admit it . But they habbitually Lie then and they Charge their victems with assult next the whole dept closes ranks around them in a wall of denials and silence. it's a gang mentality and good cops who snitch on the bad ones in court or in internal investigations are busting the gangs rules. :salute:

Cops should, at bare mininum, be held to the same standards as you or me if we were to Beat the Crap outta someone for no good reason.
I hope you recover a bit more balance accessment of how people we pay and train are suppose to deal with people.

Rev, except in some very rare circumstances a cop on duty SHOULD be untouchable. This touches on what I was saying a few weeks ago, we have entirely too many people in this country who think it's acceptable behavior to harass/cajole/spit/assault or just flat be belligerent to police and then scream "hey what the fuck" when the cops respond in kind.

You're correct, a cop should be held to the same standards as you as far as behavior goes, if they commit an assault throw their ass in prison. Problem is , not every claim of assault by a cop is in fact an assault. And likewise police should have the same right to defend themselves as you or I. If a drunk old man lays hands on me, I'm defending myself, he may end up hurt. Why shouldn't a cop have that same right? And no, I'm NOT justifying what this particular cop did; but you seem to always be on the "the cop is always wrong" rant. And we both know that just isn't the case.

ConHog

02-17-2012, 03:02 PM

cuz you are wrong and you know it. not a game.

and I didnt say I wanted anyone to commit suicide, I just want them to know how it feels.

I'm wrong in having the opinion that one should NEVER hope for another person to commit suicide?

Oh and you absolutely were suggesting you would be happy to see them kill themselves.

LuvRPgrl

02-17-2012, 03:09 PM

I'm wrong in having the opinion that one should NEVER hope for another person to commit suicide?

Oh and you absolutely were suggesting you would be happy to see them kill themselves.

suggested, hardly. and there are people right now I would wish to commit suicide.
any serial killer on the loose for example.
All the leaders of terrorist groups.

pegwinn

02-17-2012, 03:36 PM

Hitler in fact DID....

Nope, Time Travelers came back in time and whacked him. Saw it on TV so it must be real.

...What kind of training or common sense would make any decent man in a uniform think that he was threatened by what everyone else clearly sees a a friendly gesture....

...Cops should, at bare mininum, be held to the same standards as you or me if we were to Beat the Crap outta someone for no good reason.

Obviously a lack of common sense, training, or both. Cops should be held to higher standards.

Rev, except in some very rare circumstances a cop on duty SHOULD be untouchable...

You're correct, a cop should be held to the same standards as you as far as behavior goes, if they commit an assault throw their ass in prison...

Attacking a cop should be an aggravating factor in any criminal proceeding. That doesn't mean you cannot defend yourself from an overzealous LE Type. Cops are public servants. They should be held to a higher standard than mere civilians.

I can teach an 18/19/20 year old Marine how to maim and kill using hands and feet. I can then look him/her dead in the eye and warn them that we expect them to maintain self discipline even dead drunk in a bar brawl. IOW having an ability doesn't mean it must be used. I figure that Cops (with a minimum 21 age limit) having so much more interaction with the public should be at least as disciplined.

I'm with the Gunny. It will take far more than a loud mouth and a fat cop to take me in if I don't think he's got the right to do so.

ConHog

02-17-2012, 03:52 PM

Nope, Time Travelers came back in time and whacked him. Saw it on TV so it must be real.

Obviously a lack of common sense, training, or both. Cops should be held to higher standards.

Attacking a cop should be an aggravating factor in any criminal proceeding. That doesn't mean you cannot defend yourself from an overzealous LE Type. Cops are public servants. They should be held to a higher standard than mere civilians.

I can teach an 18/19/20 year old Marine how to maim and kill using hands and feet. I can then look him/her dead in the eye and warn them that we expect them to maintain self discipline even dead drunk in a bar brawl. IOW having an ability doesn't mean it must be used. I figure that Cops (with a minimum 21 age limit) having so much more interaction with the public should be at least as disciplined.

I'm with the Gunny. It will take far more than a loud mouth and a fat cop to take me in if I don't think he's got the right to do so.

and that is why so many end up getting the shit beat out of themselves by cops. Like we discussed in the right to resist thread a few weeks back. Most dumb shits either don't know or don't care whether an arrest is actually illegal, they will simply fight ANY arrest. Please tell me you aren't one of THOSE?

pegwinn

02-17-2012, 03:58 PM

and that is why so many end up getting the shit beat out of themselves by cops. Like we discussed in the right to resist thread a few weeks back. Most dumb shits either don't know or don't care whether an arrest is actually illegal, they will simply fight ANY arrest. Please tell me you aren't one of THOSE?

I'm actually pretty simple in that I normally read, and speak, fairly literally. So, when I wrote

I'm with the Gunny. It will take far more than a loud mouth and a fat cop to take me in if I don't think he's got the right to do so.

What do you think I meant?

logroller

02-17-2012, 04:07 PM

Neither cases seem to justify reasonable or diligent behavior for anyone, regardless of whatever higher standards one would hold a LE officer-- both appear to be clearly unethical.

ConHog

02-17-2012, 04:09 PM

I'm actually pretty simple in that I normally read, and speak, fairly literally. So, when I wrote

[/B]What do you think I meant?

I know what you wrote. BUT as I said, there are many people who THINK a cop doesn't have a right to take them in when in fact s/he does a have right to do. I can picture Gunny going postal if a cop tried to affect a legitimate arrest on him. I HOPE that the same can't be said for you, that is what I was getting at.

pegwinn

02-17-2012, 04:27 PM

I know what you wrote. BUT as I said, there are many people who THINK a cop doesn't have a right to take them in when in fact s/he does a have right to do. I can picture Gunny going postal if a cop tried to affect a legitimate arrest on him. I HOPE that the same can't be said for you, that is what I was getting at.

Legitimacy is subjective in the moment. Hindsight, and court rooms, are 20/20.

ConHog

02-17-2012, 04:30 PM

Legitimacy is subjective in the moment. Hindsight, and court rooms, are 20/20.

Completely incorrect. There is a substantive difference between an illegal arrest and an arrest which leads to a person either not being charged or being charged but not found guilty. You have NO right to resist arrest simply because you believe you aren't guilty of whatever crime you are accused of.

pegwinn

02-17-2012, 04:50 PM

Completely incorrect.

As if. Read each word that I wrote. You will see that they are perfectly factual and correct. You simply don't agree with it because you are reading into instead of simply reading. I am not playing word games to trap you. I am not trying to score points either. But instead of brevity, I will spell it out.

You have NO right to resist arrest simply because you believe you aren't guilty of whatever crime you are accused of.

I never said that. The discussion was focused on a "legitimate" arrest (your words). My words focused on whether I believed the cop had a right to make the arrest. Or, legitimacy if you will.

In that confrontation, the legitimacy is in the moment. The cop obviously thinks it's a legit arrest or he would not attempt it. I obviously will resist if I believe he has no legitimate right to make the arrest. I would say that the examples used by Gunny and I regarding fat/loud/violent cops define what we consider to be legitimate quite well.

In the courtroom they will of course see it whatever way it goes and they will point to this or that which should have been noted in the moment. That would be 20/20 hindsight.

Intense

02-17-2012, 04:54 PM

I told myself i wasn't going to post this type of thing anymore but this just really got to me.
whos story do you believe?

In both cases I believe the Cops totally at fault. Ive seen people lie in court and on the streets both with and without badges, so it's always case by case.

revelarts

02-17-2012, 04:59 PM

Rev, except in some very rare circumstances a cop on duty SHOULD be untouchable. This touches on what I was saying a few weeks ago, we have entirely too many people in this country who think it's acceptable behavior to harass/cajole/spit/assault or just flat be belligerent to police and then scream "hey what the fuck" when the cops respond in kind.

You're correct, a cop should be held to the same standards as you as far as behavior goes, if they commit an assault throw their ass in prison. Problem is , not every claim of assault by a cop is in fact an assault. And likewise police should have the same right to defend themselves as you or I. If a drunk old man lays hands on me, I'm defending myself, he may end up hurt. Why shouldn't a cop have that same right? And no, I'm NOT justifying what this particular cop did; but you seem to always be on the "the cop is always wrong" rant. And we both know that just isn't the case.
Be more specific , the rant is the COP in the video or story is wrong , The system that lets them get away with it is wrong and the good cops to report it and people who report it are not WRONG.that's
the jist of my rants.
But I don't have to assume when i can watch TV and Youtube for hours and see cops beating the crap out of people all over the country. And listen to you say how funny it is to watch people tazed for BS. but i'm somehow ranting if i mention it.

Didn't i post a video a few weeks ago about a good cop.
didn't i just mention good cops in the comment above.
Good cops are SOLID GOLD.
my problem is a system that assumes that people who put on uniforms should be given MORE than the benefit of the doubt when It seems too many cops are abusing their very limited authority. To the point of getting away with murder.

good cops are doing their job and it's pretty thankless. but bad cops need to be exposed and fired if on plain facts it appears they have committed criminal acts, that's step one, . Step two they should be tried and sent to jail based on the evidense. People in other jobs get fired after internal investigations that don't have video or a crowd of witnesses, Cops get a desk job or suspended without pay too freaking often. It's a system that's broke and becoming moreso it seems to me the amount of violence on innocents is completely unnecessary.

And I'm going to step out and mention something that's probably going to enflame some folk to the point where they can't think about it rationally. but I hope they can think about it for a minute.

Why don't the good cops report and expose the bad cops more often? MOST are good people. We pay them to catch criminals and to STOP stop assults on innocents and to stop crimes . but it seems it's witnesses and police video that "report" bad cops not those who we are suppose to call we we see "civilians" committing crime.

We get indignant becuase we claim we don't see Muslims denouncing Radical Muslims but whens the last time you saw a cop report and denounce RADICAL Criminal cops. it's rare.

Religion of Peace
Peace Officers

hmmm
Which terrorist should we fear most? they are here. ("doh, he went there.. rev thinks ALL cops are terrorist", uh no, BAD cops are terrorist we pay, train and arm. )

the Peace officers are supposed trained and sworn to protect innocents and put up with a few harsh words. Not be untouchable and overly sensitive like a jerk at bar.

May God bless every decent cop and expose and deal with the bad ones

logroller

02-17-2012, 05:05 PM

Completely incorrect. There is a substantive difference between an illegal arrest and an arrest which leads to a person either not being charged or being charged but not found guilty. You have NO right to resist arrest simply because you believe you aren't guilty of whatever crime you are accused of.
De minimis cause still needs to stand to reason. A man relieved of performing life saving measures would be counterinuitive to general harm probabilities; and absent officer joe having a glass jaw, a drunken 84- yr old man's tactile behavior struggles to demonstrate assault, again, which must reasonably infer some degree of probable harm.

Intense

02-17-2012, 05:07 PM

Be more specific , the rant is the COP in the video or story is wrong , The system that lets them get away with it is wrong and the good cops to report it and people who report it are not WRONG.that's
the jist of my rants.
But I don't have to assume when i can watch TV and Youtube for hours and see cops beating the crap out of people all over the country. And listen to you say how funny it is to watch people tazed for BS. but i'm somehow ranting if i mention it.

Didn't i post a video a few weeks ago about a good cop.
didn't i just mention good cops in the comment above.
Good cops are SOLID GOLD.
my problem is a system that assumes that people who put on uniforms should be given MORE than the benefit of the doubt when It seems too many cops are abusing their very limited authority. To the point of getting away with murder.

good cops are doing their job and it's pretty thankless. but bad cops need to be exposed and fired if on plain facts it appears they have committed criminal acts, that's step one, . Step two they should be tried and sent to jail based on the evidense. People in other jobs get fired after internal investigations that don't have video or a crowd of witnesses, Cops get a desk job or suspended without pay too freaking often. It's a system that's broke and becoming moreso it seems to me the amount of violence on innocents is completely unnecessary.

And I'm going to step out and mention something that's probably going to enflame some folk to the point where they can't think about it rationally. but I hope they can think about it for a minute.

Why don't the good cops report and expose the bad cops more often? MOST are good people. We pay them to catch criminals and to STOP stop assults on innocents and to stop crimes . but it seems it's witnesses and police video that "report" bad cops not those who we are suppose to call we we see "civilians" committing crime.

We get indignant becuase we claim we don't see Muslims denouncing Radical Muslims but whens the last time you saw a cop report and denounce RADICAL Criminal cops. it's rare.

Religion of Peace
Peace Officers

hmmm
Which terrorist should we fear most? they are here. ("doh, he went there.. rev thinks ALL cops are terrorist", uh no, BAD cops are terrorist we pay, train and arm. )

the Peace officers are supposed trained and sworn to protect innocents and put up with a few harsh words. Not be untouchable and overly sensitive like a jerk at bar.

May God bless every decent cop and expose and deal with the bad ones

my problem is a system that assumes that people who put on uniforms should be given MORE than the benefit of the doubt when It seems too many cops are abusing their very limited authority. To the point of getting away with murder. Yep. That's why it is so important to remain calm and respectful. You document what you can, get witnesses when you can, even be aware of security cameras that may back you up. In some areas it is now illegal to photograph or film Cops in action. That does seem unconstitutional to me. Funny how those with dirty hands don't like paper trails of any kind either.

tailfins

02-17-2012, 05:19 PM

Legitimacy is subjective in the moment. Hindsight, and court rooms, are 20/20.

Filing felony charges isn't a split second decision. That's just as abusive as the physical abuse. Prosecutors are more contemptible than cops. Actually, cops have such an ego that glad-handing them is effective. Barney Fife fits the stereotype in how he reacted to shallow flattery.

LuvRPgrl

02-17-2012, 05:40 PM

Yep. That's why it is so important to remain calm and respectful. You document what you can, get witnesses when you can, even be aware of security cameras that may back you up. In some areas it is now illegal to photograph or film Cops in action. That does seem unconstitutional to me. Funny how those with dirty hands don't like paper trails of any kind either.

states are outlawing filming of cops in action

ConHog

02-17-2012, 06:35 PM

As if. Read each word that I wrote. You will see that they are perfectly factual and correct. You simply don't agree with it because you are reading into instead of simply reading. I am not playing word games to trap you. I am not trying to score points either. But instead of brevity, I will spell it out.

I never said that. The discussion was focused on a "legitimate" arrest (your words). My words focused on whether I believed the cop had a right to make the arrest. Or, legitimacy if you will.

In that confrontation, the legitimacy is in the moment. The cop obviously thinks it's a legit arrest or he would not attempt it. I obviously will resist if I believe he has no legitimate right to make the arrest. I would say that the examples used by Gunny and I regarding fat/loud/violent cops define what we consider to be legitimate quite well.

In the courtroom they will of course see it whatever way it goes and they will point to this or that which should have been noted in the moment. That would be 20/20 hindsight.

Again, incorrect. The legality of an arrest is not in the moment. An arrest is either legal or it is not. Let's use two examples to illustrate.

In example one a cop punches the suspect in the mouth and then handcuffs him while he is unconscious. Turns out the suspect killed twenty people.

In example two a cop approaches a man , handcuffs him and leads him to the police station. The man doesn't resist at all. The suspect turns out to be completely innocent and is released.

Now, is example one an illegal arrest, is example two? Is either? Is neither?

pegwinn

02-17-2012, 08:08 PM

Again, incorrect. The legality of an arrest is not in the moment. An arrest is either legal or it is not. Let's use two examples to illustrate.

In example one a cop punches the suspect in the mouth and then handcuffs him while he is unconscious. Turns out the suspect killed twenty people.

In example two a cop approaches a man , handcuffs him and leads him to the police station. The man doesn't resist at all. The suspect turns out to be completely innocent and is released.

Now, is example one an illegal arrest, is example two? Is either? Is neither?

Your not getting it, or I am not communicating well. We shall agree to disagree and move on. Or, at least I will.

ConHog

02-17-2012, 08:11 PM

Your not getting it, or I am not communicating well. We shall agree to disagree and move on. Or, at least I will.

I guess I'm not getting it. Agree to disagree? Not in a case like this. I'm asking what do you consider an illegal arrest? Because that is not something that can be an opinion. An arrest is either legal, or illegal and not up for debate.

Intense

02-17-2012, 08:26 PM

states are outlawing filming of cops in action

Court says public has right to video police in public places
By adamg - 8/26/11 - 3:29 pm

A Boston lawyer suing the city and police officers who arrested him for using his cell phone to record a drug arrest on the Common won a victory today when a federal appeals court said the officers could not claim "qualified immunity" because they were performing their job when they arrested him under a state law that bars audio recordings without the consent of both parties.

In its ruling, which lets Simon Glik continue his lawsuit, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said the way Glik was arrested and his phone seized under a state wiretapping law violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights:

The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw." ...

Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

The court noted that past decisions on police recording had involved fulltime reporters, but said the First Amendment does not apply just to professional news gatherers.

http://www.universalhub.com/2011/court-says-state-law-banning-recording-police-offi

ConHog

02-17-2012, 08:34 PM

Court says public has right to video police in public places
By adamg - 8/26/11 - 3:29 pm

A Boston lawyer suing the city and police officers who arrested him for using his cell phone to record a drug arrest on the Common won a victory today when a federal appeals court said the officers could not claim "qualified immunity" because they were performing their job when they arrested him under a state law that bars audio recordings without the consent of both parties.

In its ruling, which lets Simon Glik continue his lawsuit, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said the way Glik was arrested and his phone seized under a state wiretapping law violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights:

The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw." ...

Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

The court noted that past decisions on police recording had involved fulltime reporters, but said the First Amendment does not apply just to professional news gatherers.

http://www.universalhub.com/2011/court-says-state-law-banning-recording-police-offi

Good decision in my opinion. For the most part anyway. I think there most certainly should be some exceptions , but overall police being videotaped at a traffic stop or whatever harms no one and can only serve to protect all parties involved.

Intense

02-17-2012, 08:37 PM

I guess I'm not getting it. Agree to disagree? Not in a case like this. I'm asking what do you consider an illegal arrest? Because that is not something that can be an opinion. An arrest is either legal, or illegal and not up for debate.

Hey Conhog, hope all is well.

I think there are many variables to are missing. There are legal Arrests where Cop's still blow it, there are Legal Arrests where they don't. There are Illegal Arrests where a Cop does not have Cause, Jurisdiction, both examples that Superiors or Courts may have arbitrary power over. There is always interpretation where Humans are concerned. There is always the threat of police abuse when the wrong buttons are pushed. Knowing something, surviving something, and proving it in court is a whole other matter.

pegwinn

02-17-2012, 08:42 PM

I guess I'm not getting it. Agree to disagree? Not in a case like this. I'm asking what do you consider an illegal arrest? Because that is not something that can be an opinion. An arrest is either legal, or illegal and not up for debate.

Oh Jeez. I am really trying to remain civil.

In the moment: As in whatever the hell is going on right now. If a cop gets in my face verbally and becomes physical, in that moment I will decide if he's in the right. If yes, then I will allow him to proceed. If I decide he is not in the right (overly violent, whatever) then I will defend myself. If in defending myself, I stomp him flat and leave him for dead then so be it. I make an effort daily to overcome a fast temper and a tendency to settle it physically. If at that moment I'm not convinced that he's in the line of duty, all bets are off.

Hindsight is 20/20: Down the road a court will examine "the moment" and determine who was right, wrong, or neutral. It will determine if the cop should have acted differently or if I should have intuitively known that he was thinking of someone who looked just like me. IOW it is always easier to look back when you were not there and pass judgement. Just ask any JAG during a SCM over ROE violations.

The only way I can spell it out any better would be to type slower. And, I am slow enough already. You may now agree or disagree. As for me, I am unsubbing since I don't intend to let this turn into some form of brawl. C'ya round.

Intense

02-17-2012, 08:44 PM

Good decision in my opinion. For the most part anyway. I think there most certainly should be some exceptions , but overall police being videotaped at a traffic stop or whatever harms no one and can only serve to protect all parties involved.

Yeah. We have laws in NY now where we have to change lanes when approaching a Traffic stop, if you don't it's cause for a pull over and a ticket. Always something. I think it's good law to allow you to document. That is something that could be used in the Cop's defense as well, should there be allegations. At Protests and Rallies where trouble develops, it is a good tool in getting to the bottom of what goes down. Either way, the Cops have allot of power, you want to save the argument for the court room, it's not gonna end good pushing the wrong buttons, on the scene.

ConHog

02-17-2012, 08:45 PM

Hey Conhog, hope all is well.

I think there are many variables to are missing. There are legal Arrests where Cop's still blow it, there are Legal Arrests where they don't. There are Illegal Arrests where a Cop does not have Cause, Jurisdiction, both examples that Superiors or Courts may have arbitrary power over. There is always interpretation where Humans are concerned. There is always the threat of police abuse when the wrong buttons are pushed. Knowing something, surviving something, and proving it in court is a whole other matter.

Hey Intense, I'm good thanks, hope you are as well.

There are legal arrests where the cops blow it, and we have legal remedies for that. Sure once in awhile the smart play might be to not succumb to the arrest and then fight the injustice in court, but much like the overwhelming percentages say wear your seat belt even though occasionally a person does suffer worse because of a seat belt, the overwhelming percentages say you're best bet is to NOT fight the police and then if you think your rights have been violated, take appropriate legal action.

I think the question of illegal arrest actually comes up VERY rarely in this country anyway, sure cops do stupid shit while making an arrest, but very few people in this country are subject to an unconstitutional arrest. DAs go after cops who make their jobs harder for them.

So , while I agree that a person has a right to resist an unlawful arrest, I disagree that that is a situation the average American will ever have to worry about.

Intense

02-17-2012, 09:01 PM

Hey Intense, I'm good thanks, hope you are as well.

There are legal arrests where the cops blow it, and we have legal remedies for that. Sure once in awhile the smart play might be to not succumb to the arrest and then fight the injustice in court, but much like the overwhelming percentages say wear your seat belt even though occasionally a person does suffer worse because of a seat belt, the overwhelming percentages say you're best bet is to NOT fight the police and then if you think your rights have been violated, take appropriate legal action.

I think the question of illegal arrest actually comes up VERY rarely in this country anyway, sure cops do stupid shit while making an arrest, but very few people in this country are subject to an unconstitutional arrest. DAs go after cops who make their jobs harder for them.

So , while I agree that a person has a right to resist an unlawful arrest, I disagree that that is a situation the average American will ever have to worry about.

Think about a Cop outside of his Jurisdiction, where no crime was committed. Even an argument, and a shooting results. Thinking about someone with a heart condition or asthma tazered without justifiable cause. Think about a cop knocking on your door, and you open it, he forces his way in and arrests you. You Argue, he tazers you. It has happened already. What is unlawful entry and how does it apply when a cop swears in court that you invited him in, or lies about a claim of seeing contraband, or hearing someone crying or calling for help. Shit happens. Mistaken Identity.

Remember this, very close to home, for me. Michael Oliver shot 31 rounds and claimed that he thought his gun was misfiring. Granted the Victim was trying to run him over with his car, but who in their right mind would fire a semiauto believing it was misfiring or jammed? I'd be more concerned of blowing my hand off. Let's not even bring up replacing the clip. I think back in the day, when 38's were standard issue, firing till you emptied your gun, meant 6 low power rounds. Times changed in relation to fire power, but not so much procedure. Too many bullets flying around nowadays. ;)

Three detectives were found not guilty Friday on all charges in the shooting death of Sean Bell, who died in a hail of 50 police bullets outside a club in Jamaica, Queens, in November 2006. The verdict prompted calls for calm from the mayor, angry promises of protests by those speaking for the Bell family and expressions of relief by the detectives.

Detective Michael Oliver, who fired 31 bullets the night of the shooting and faced manslaughter charges, said Justice Arthur J. Cooperman had made a “fair and just decision.”

Justice Cooperman delivered the verdict in State Supreme Court at 9 a.m. Describing the evidence, he said it was reasonable for the detectives to fear that someone in the crowd that night carried a gun. He added that many of the prosecution’s witnesses, including Mr. Bell’s friends and the two wounded victims, were simply not believable. “At times, the testimony of those witnesses just didn’t make sense,” the judge said.

ConHog

02-17-2012, 09:04 PM

Oh Jeez. I am really trying to remain civil.

In the moment: As in whatever the hell is going on right now. If a cop gets in my face verbally and becomes physical, in that moment I will decide if he's in the right. If yes, then I will allow him to proceed. If I decide he is not in the right (overly violent, whatever) then I will defend myself. If in defending myself, I stomp him flat and leave him for dead then so be it. I make an effort daily to overcome a fast temper and a tendency to settle it physically. If at that moment I'm not convinced that he's in the line of duty, all bets are off.

Hindsight is 20/20: Down the road a court will examine "the moment" and determine who was right, wrong, or neutral. It will determine if the cop should have acted differently or if I should have intuitively known that he was thinking of someone who looked just like me. IOW it is always easier to look back when you were not there and pass judgement. Just ask any JAG during a SCM over ROE violations.

The only way I can spell it out any better would be to type slower. And, I am slow enough already. You may now agree or disagree. As for me, I am unsubbing since I don't intend to let this turn into some form of brawl. C'ya round.

Why in the hell are you fighting to remain civil? I've done or said nothing uncivil towards you. Tell you what, I have enough children who get mad over my every post on this board, no desire to add another or any room on my dance card, so I'll just stop discussing this with you.

ConHog

02-17-2012, 09:10 PM

Think about a Cop outside of his Jurisdiction, where no crime was committed. Even an argument, and a shooting results. Thinking about someone with a heart condition or asthma tazered without justifiable cause. Think about a cop knocking on your door, and you open it, he forces his way in and arrests you. You Argue, he tazers you. It has happened already. What is unlawful entry and how does it apply when a cop swears in court that you invited him in, or lies about a claim of seeing contraband, or hearing someone crying or calling for help. Shit happens. Mistaken Identity.

Remember this, very close to home, for me. Michael Oliver shot 31 rounds and claimed that he thought his gun was misfiring. Granted the Victim was trying to run him over with his car, but who in their right mind would fire a semiauto believing it was misfiring or jammed? I'd be more concerned of blowing my hand off. Let's not even bring up replacing the clip. I think back in the day, when 38's were standard issue, firing till you emptied your gun, meant 6 low power rounds. Times changed in relation to fire power, but not so much procedure. Too many bullets flying around nowadays. ;)

Three detectives were found not guilty Friday on all charges in the shooting death of Sean Bell, who died in a hail of 50 police bullets outside a club in Jamaica, Queens, in November 2006. The verdict prompted calls for calm from the mayor, angry promises of protests by those speaking for the Bell family and expressions of relief by the detectives.

Detective Michael Oliver, who fired 31 bullets the night of the shooting and faced manslaughter charges, said Justice Arthur J. Cooperman had made a “fair and just decision.”

Justice Cooperman delivered the verdict in State Supreme Court at 9 a.m. Describing the evidence, he said it was reasonable for the detectives to fear that someone in the crowd that night carried a gun. He added that many of the prosecution’s witnesses, including Mr. Bell’s friends and the two wounded victims, were simply not believable. “At times, the testimony of those witnesses just didn’t make sense,” the judge said.

I don't see how any of that relates to illegal arrest.

An illegal arrest would be something like a cop just busting in a house unannounced and without any warrrant and attempting to arrest someone. In THAT sort of situation a person could reasonably resist including killing the cop if necessary, depending on how much force the cop himself used. On the other hand, if that same cop had a warrant, then simply disputing the charges is NOT enough to claim the arrest is illegal. That is a matter for the courts.

The more I read some of this , the more I start to see myself agreeing with Jim where he posted that no one should be allowed to resist period. Since it's obvious that many people just don't understand the rules about legal versus illegal arrest.

LuvRPgrl

02-17-2012, 09:40 PM

Court says public has right to video police in public places
By adamg - 8/26/11 - 3:29 pm

A Boston lawyer suing the city and police officers who arrested him for using his cell phone to record a drug arrest on the Common won a victory today when a federal appeals court said the officers could not claim "qualified immunity" because they were performing their job when they arrested him under a state law that bars audio recordings without the consent of both parties.

In its ruling, which lets Simon Glik continue his lawsuit, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said the way Glik was arrested and his phone seized under a state wiretapping law violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights:

The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw." ...

Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

The court noted that past decisions on police recording had involved fulltime reporters, but said the First Amendment does not apply just to professional news gatherers.

http://www.universalhub.com/2011/court-says-state-law-banning-recording-police-offi

I was expecting such a decision, but am still very happy anyways. It should slow down the violence cops perpetuate on innocent people.

ConHog

02-17-2012, 09:42 PM

I was expecting such a decision, but am still very happy anyways. It should slow down the violence cops perpetuate on innocent people.

Now if we could just figure out a way to slow down the violence "innocent" people perpetuate on cops.

LuvRPgrl

02-17-2012, 09:51 PM

Now if we could just figure out a way to slow down the violence "innocent" people perpetuate on cops.

I'm not too worried about an unarmed, or even armed person going after someone wearing a vest and carrying a gun and probably has backup, and is most likely an ass.

I am concerned about unarmed people being brutally treated and beaten, sometimes to death by armed thugs and lliars.

U do C the difference dont you?

ConHog

02-17-2012, 09:57 PM

I'm not too worried about an unarmed, or even armed person going after someone wearing a vest and carrying a gun and probably has backup, and is most likely an ass.

I am concerned about unarmed people being brutally treated and beaten, sometimes to death by armed thugs and lliars.

U do C the difference dont you?

No, I don't see a difference. ALL human life is of equal value to me.

logroller

02-17-2012, 11:03 PM

No, I don't see a difference. ALL human life is of equal value to me.

So then, enhanced penalties against a person who's committed murder against a police officer you see as unjustified?

ConHog

02-17-2012, 11:07 PM

So then, enhanced penalties against a person who's committed murder against a police officer you see as unjustified?

Tough question Log, on the balance I would have to say I don't believe in enhanced penalties for killing a cop , but I DO advocate for enhanced penalties for a murder committed in the furtherance of another crime, whether the victim is a cop or not.

IOW no enhanced penalties if your crime is walking up and shooting a cop for no reason, but enhanced penalties if you shoot and kill a bank teller while robbing a bank.

logroller

02-18-2012, 02:21 AM

Tough question Log, on the balance I would have to say I don't believe in enhanced penalties for killing a cop , but I DO advocate for enhanced penalties for a murder committed in the furtherance of another crime, whether the victim is a cop or not.

IOW no enhanced penalties if your crime is walking up and shooting a cop for no reason, but enhanced penalties if you shoot and kill a bank teller while robbing a bank.

Well the charges sorta builds upon each other in nearly all cases; as killing a cop while on duty, certainly is, say, obstructing justice, fleeing the scene ... Those aren't strike-able offenses; maybe that'd be the enhancement pre-qual-- rape, murder, robbery etc. Though, assault could count I guess.

Gunny

02-18-2012, 05:49 AM

Intense

02-18-2012, 10:24 AM

I don't see how any of that relates to illegal arrest.

An illegal arrest would be something like a cop just busting in a house unannounced and without any warrrant and attempting to arrest someone. In THAT sort of situation a person could reasonably resist including killing the cop if necessary, depending on how much force the cop himself used. On the other hand, if that same cop had a warrant, then simply disputing the charges is NOT enough to claim the arrest is illegal. That is a matter for the courts.

The more I read some of this , the more I start to see myself agreeing with Jim where he posted that no one should be allowed to resist period. Since it's obvious that many people just don't understand the rules about legal versus illegal arrest.

I don't think anyone should resist, generally. The Force of Law is going to be on the Cops side. The place to battle Illegal Arrest is later in Court.

You may have missed this. There are other examples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyMtZtv05Ok&feature=related
California Deputies Taser Senior Citizen in His Own Home

Intense

02-18-2012, 10:27 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEgYg1X8DUI&feature=related
Andrew Napolitano - Recording the Cops

Intense

02-18-2012, 10:34 AM

What do you make of this? 16 year old with a broken back failing to comply?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWt9qbQkE9Y&feature=related
Cops Tazer Child 19 Times Leaving Him in a Coma

RadiomanATL

02-18-2012, 01:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M8vei3L0L8

ConHog

02-18-2012, 01:32 PM

What do you make of this? 16 year old with a broken back failing to comply?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWt9qbQkE9Y&feature=related
Cops Tazer Child 19 Times Leaving Him in a Coma

I think those cops should be charged with assault. There is no valid reason for tazing someone 19 times.

gabosaurus

02-18-2012, 02:53 PM

ConHog

02-18-2012, 02:58 PM

I normally tend to believe the police side until proven otherwise. Way too often, two sides of the story are not presented.
It's not unlike military members getting away with shooting people by saying "I felt in danger."

What the fuck? If a military member is pointing a weapon as someone it isn't because he felt in danger, it is in fact because he IS in danger.

LuvRPgrl

02-18-2012, 03:59 PM

What the fuck? If a military member is pointing a weapon as someone it isn't because he felt in danger, it is in fact because he IS in danger.

well, you claim the cops in the vid should be charged, because YOU KNOW there is no defense that wont make you look stupid
BUT HERE, YOUR TRUE COLORS SHOW

so, if a military guy pointing his gun is PROOF that he was in danger, I guess we can say the same about cops and tazers, so, that old man and young boy were dangerous

ConHog

02-18-2012, 04:02 PM

well, you claim the cops in the vid should be charged, because YOU KNOW there is no defense that wont make you look stupid
BUT HERE, YOUR TRUE COLORS SHOW

so, if a military guy pointing his gun is PROOF that he was in danger, I guess we can say the same about cops and tazers, so, that old man and young boy were dangerous

Sure, IF our police received the same training as our military, but they don't. I've trained with both, and that's a simple fact.

And actually what I said wasn't ENTIRELY true, there are of course strictly offensive military operations, but that isn't what we were or are discussing here.

But that's going off on a tangent anyway, because if cops pulled a weapon every time they felt in danger then they would have a weapon drawn on EVERY traffic stop, because statistics prove that the ordinary traffic stop is the most dangerous situation for a cop.

revelarts

02-18-2012, 04:23 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEgYg1X8DUI&feature=related
Andrew Napolitano - Recording the Cops

Exactly what i'm talking about!
Cops breaking the law lying on police reports, hiding evidence, assaulting innocents, threatening the nonviolent with deadly force and police depts Covering there Asre's. -DENY DENY DENY, until it's proven beyond doubt that they were wrong and yet Very few firings or jail for those items which would put a "civilian" in jail for years.
Con you say "it's rare" It seems to be unwritten policy. we can post hours of video and site pages of cases that show the trend/pattern/policy. Some cases are worse than other and thankfully judges and video have saved a few people from the lying BS of bad cops who Tarnish the rep of all police. The reputation of the police is in the hands of the police. Not my or anyone elses rants. the Cops KNOW what honesty is. they know which Cops need to take a freaking pill, or be off of the force. Most probably need to be retrained in the Bill of rights and constitution which they swear to uphold. And if they feel they can't police under that they need to quit. AND it seem many really don't know the law or the line of there official authority. "Do as i say with a humble attitude" is not the law, but people have sadly come to accept it as such.
Cops have the ability to police themselves, if they can stand to correct their "brothers". If not the people will continue to Rant and show these vids, challenge and more because we never know which one of you is a good cop or a bad one. And we cannot count on your bosses to correct any of you that step out of line.

ConHog

02-18-2012, 04:32 PM

Exactly what i'm talking about!
Cops breaking the law lying on police reports, hiding evidence, assaulting innocents, threatening the nonviolent with deadly force and police depts Covering there Asre's. -DENY DENY DENY, until it's proven beyond doubt that they were wrong and yet Very few firings or jail for those items which would put a "civilian" in jail for years.
Con you say "it's rare" It seems to be unwritten policy. we can post hours of video and site pages of cases that show the trend/pattern/policy. Some cases are worse than other and thankfully judges and video have saved a few people from the lying BS of bad cops who Tarnish the rep of all police. The reputation of the police is in the hands of the police. Not my or anyone elses rants. the Cops KNOW what honesty is. they know which Cops need to take a freaking pill, or be off of the force. Most probably need to be retrained in the Bill of rights and constitution which they swear to uphold. And if they feel they can't police under that they need to quit. AND it seem many really don't know the law or the line of there official authority. "Do as i say with a humble attitude" is not the law, but people have sadly come to accept it as such.
Cops have the ability to police themselves, if they can stand to correct there "brothers". If not the people will continue to Rant and show these vids, challenge and more because we never know which one of you is a good cop or a bad one.

And likewise Rev, cops never know which person they approach is going to go ape shit and kill them. It works both ways.

LuvRPgrl

02-18-2012, 04:47 PM

And likewise Rev, cops never know which person they approach is going to go ape shit and kill them. It works both ways.

and yet they claim profiling is useful and works.

revelarts

02-18-2012, 04:50 PM

And likewise Rev, cops never know which person they approach is going to go ape shit and kill them. It works both ways.

:facepalm99:

You know 1st of all that's part of the job they chose. But we shouldn't have to worry when we meet a cop. correct?

AND a cops walk up to everyone with a stick, a taser, a gun and a gang of brothers will that swoop down on us. Most people cops approach don't have any of that. Advantage Cops 9 X outta 10 encounters.

ignore everything else i mentioned about cops policing themselves. I should post off duty cops attacked by cops on duty. may that will jar your thinking some.

ConHog

02-18-2012, 05:00 PM

and yet they claim profiling is useful and works.

Profiling DOES work, but do you think patrol men are taught how to do it? Sheesh LUV.

ConHog

02-18-2012, 05:02 PM

:facepalm99:

You know 1st of all that's part of the job they chose. But we shouldn't have to worry when we meet a cop. correct?

AND a cops walk up to everyone with a stick, a taser, a gun and a gang of brothers will that swoop down on us. Most people cops approach don't have any of that. Advantage Cops 9 X outta 10 encounters.

ignore everything else i mentioned about cops policing themselves. I should post off duty cops attacked by cops on duty. may that will jar your thinking some.

and for every bad cop story you post I could post a good cop story.

The simple fact of the matter is MOST people end an encounter with a cop with little more than a ticket. If that even.

That doesn't mean ALL cops are good honest people worthy of the badge, because they are not, but MOST are.

If you can't stop acting as if all or even a majority of cops are bad, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation.

revelarts

02-18-2012, 05:44 PM

....

Didn't i post a video a few weeks ago about a good cop.
didn't i just mention good cops in the comment above.
Good cops are SOLID GOLD.
my problem is a system that assumes that people who put on uniforms should be given MORE than the benefit of the doubt when It seems too many cops are abusing their very limited authority. To the point of getting away with murder.

good cops are doing their job and it's pretty thankless. ...

May God bless every decent cop and expose and deal with the bad ones

and for every bad cop story you post I could post a good cop story.

The simple fact of the matter is MOST people end an encounter with a cop with little more than a ticket. If that even.

That doesn't mean ALL cops are good honest people worthy of the badge, because they are not, but MOST are.

If you can't stop acting as if all or even a majority of cops are bad, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation.

Sorry if talking about bad cops without acknowledging the mostly good cops with every other sentence upsets you, people being beaten tazed, arrested or killed by bad cops upsets me. And the good cops speaking out more would be nice don't you think? But it's not something I'm not going to sugar coat or tone down to your satisfaction I'm sure.

ConHog

02-18-2012, 05:47 PM

Sorry if talking about bad cops without acknowledging the mostly good cops with every other sentence upsets you, people being beaten tazed, arrested or killed by bad cops upsets me. And the good cops speaking out more would be nice don't you think? But it's not something I'm going to sugar coat or tone down to your satisfaction I'm sure.

Pfft whatever, your posts and LUV's posts are clearly geared towards trying to make it look like MOST cops are bad.

It's cool I'll just bow out of the topic and yall can have at. No harm no foul.

Intense

02-18-2012, 09:06 PM

Pfft whatever, your posts and LUV's posts are clearly geared towards trying to make it look like MOST cops are bad.

It's cool I'll just bow out of the topic and yall can have at. No harm no foul.

That's not what they are saying Conhog. That is what you are projecting though. It's always going to be case by case. There are times when the water is so muddied nobody will even know the truth for sure. That happens everyday when dealing with humans. Regarding Tazers, there are health issues especially with people with health conditions, heart, asthma, epilepsy, to name a few. Bringing the issues out helps the situation. I'm pro Law, I'm pro Law Enforcement. That does not mean I am blind or deaf. Where change needs to be effected, we effect change..

ConHog

02-18-2012, 09:12 PM

That's not what they are saying Conhog. That is what you are projecting though. It's always going to be case by case. There are times when the water is so muddied nobody will even know the truth for sure. That happens everyday when dealing with humans. Regarding Tazers, there are health issues especially with people with health conditions, heart, asthma, epilepsy, to name a few. Bringing the issues out helps the situation. I'm pro Law, I'm pro Law Enforcement. That does not mean I am blind or deaf. Where change needs to be effected, we effect change..

I completely agree with that sentiment, bad cops should be punished and bad policy should be changed.

LuvRPgrl

02-18-2012, 09:30 PM

Profiling DOES work, but do you think patrol men are taught how to do it? Sheesh LUV.

of course they are, maybe not officially....

LuvRPgrl

02-18-2012, 09:32 PM

and for every bad cop story you post I could post a good cop story..

cop stories are SUPPOSE to be good....

The simple fact of the matter is MOST people end an encounter with a cop with little more than a ticket. If that even.

That doesn't mean ALL cops are good honest people worthy of the badge, because they are not, but MOST are.

If you can't stop acting as if all or even a majority of cops are bad, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation.
Nobody said anything about most, all or any percentage at all, the problem is the good ones cover up for the bad ones...

LuvRPgrl

02-18-2012, 09:36 PM

Pfft whatever, your posts and LUV's posts are clearly geared towards trying to make it look like MOST cops are bad..
ME ? I'm not even the one who posted any of those videos, pfffft
and nobody said MOST, thats on you for reading into it, or putting words in other peoples mouths.
Even if its only one in a million, when that one is caught, he should receive equal if not more punishment than a civilian doing the same thing, but they dont.

It's cool I'll just bow out of the topic and yall can have at. No harm no foul.
You've said that twice now, guess you're still stradling the fence

another problem is too many people believe cops dont lie

Shadow

02-18-2012, 09:54 PM

of course they are, maybe not officially....

Yes...even officially in some cases I would bet. Law inforcement uses criminal profiling all the time to help investigate crimes...you can't tell me these techniques aren't taught to officers who have been extensively trained in all of the other police methods.

ConHog

02-19-2012, 01:29 AM

logroller

02-19-2012, 01:13 PM

You guys really think barney fife is taught to profile eh? Thelocal patrol u itw write ticketsand thats about it. Detectives profile somewhat but patrolman? No

In all fairness shadow said criminal profiling; someone who exhibits criminal behavior would certainly be profiled as a criminal.

ConHog

02-19-2012, 01:37 PM

In all fairness shadow said criminal profiling; someone who exhibits criminal behavior would certainly be profiled as a criminal.

That's not profiling though, that's just realizing someone is doing something criminal. That's like suggesting that calling someone you see driving down the road is profiling that person as a driver. No it isn't.

Intense

02-19-2012, 01:43 PM

That's not profiling though, that's just realizing someone is doing something criminal. That's like suggesting that calling someone you see driving down the road is profiling that person as a driver. No it isn't.

Or, realizing the Someone you are noticing has a repeated criminal history. That's profiling and justifiable.

ConHog

02-19-2012, 01:49 PM

Or, realizing the Someone you are noticing has a repeated criminal history. That's profiling and justifiable.

Again, that isn't profiling. That's simply using information gathered. Profiling would be if you used that knowledge of criminal history along with other information and suspected the subject was either guilty of or planning on committing other crimes.

That really isn't what patrolmen do, they simply stop crimes that they DO see happening, or have received a call about.

Profiling is a tool that police use, BUT it is also a tool that a cop has to be trained in extensively to minimize the chances of a bad profile, otherwise it's just useless.

Intense

02-19-2012, 01:58 PM

Again, that isn't profiling. That's simply using information gathered. Profiling would be if you used that knowledge of criminal history along with other information and suspected the subject was either guilty of or planning on committing other crimes.

That really isn't what patrolmen do, they simply stop crimes that they DO see happening, or have received a call about.

Profiling is a tool that police use, BUT it is also a tool that a cop has to be trained in extensively to minimize the chances of a bad profile, otherwise it's just useless.

Not by me Conhog. I live in the 110th Precinct, in NYC. It is very busy. The Cops do what they do. There really isn't anyone around to nit pick what they do either. There are all different kinds of jurisdictions, climates, atmospheres around the country, all playing by their own rules of engagement. They are not all the same. When you are stopped here, for a suspicion, stated or not, you have been profiled. It's done every day.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs110pct.pdf

Shadow

02-19-2012, 02:11 PM

You guys really think barney fife is taught to profile eh? Thelocal patrol u itw write ticketsand thats about it. Detectives profile somewhat but patrolman? No

I would think it depends on years of service. A rookie starts out with about 12 to 14 weeks of training,but police officers and detectives are required to take continuing education classes...and many end up with a degree in criminal justice. Infact some of the kids I went to college with did it in the reverse...got the degree first...then went to the Police Academy.

Intense

02-19-2012, 02:22 PM

starting in the mid-1980s with the introduction of crack cocaine in America’s cities.7 Then, as that epidemic subsided, violent crime rates started a historic decline, dropping to rates lower than those seen in the 1960s, with another 12% decline from 2009 to 2010 reported last month by the FBI.8 Less well known is the story of property crime, which has been in steady decline since the early 1970s. Our rates of property crime today are half their level when the decline started. These are remarkable stories. Who among us – particularly those working in this field for the past 25 years – would have thought we could stand in our nation’s capital and say that crime rates are at their lowest levels in our professional lifetimes?
I draw three lessons from this story. First, we need a much better understanding of why this happened. I can think of no stronger indictment of our field than this: we do not have a satisfactory, much less a sophisticated, understanding of the reasons that crime has increased and decreased so dramatically. Imagine we were meeting at a medical convention, noting that the incidence of one type of cancer had dropped in half since 1970, and another type of cancer devastated America’s inner cities, particularly its communities of color, for several years, then dropped precipitously. Would we not expect the medical research community to have a deep understanding of what happened, what treatments worked, what environmental factors influenced these results, and which strains of these cancers proved particularly resistant? Of course we would.
So, the crime scientists among us need to get to work, with appropriate funding from foundations and the federal government, to help us understand our own history of crime trends. And, looking forward, we need to develop a much more sophisticated data infrastructure to allow us to track crime trends in real time.9 Think about this the next time you hear about a business report on television: If economists can tell us which sectors of the economy were growing or declining last month, certainly we can build a data infrastructure to help us understand crime trends last year.
A second lesson: we need to rethink what we mean by “crime prevention.” Too often we narrowly define “crime prevention” only in terms of programmatic investments in young people to help them lead more productive, pro-social lives. But clearly, over the past forty years, this historic decline in crime rates has not come about because we invested massively in programs that helped our young people avoid criminal activity. Other policy choices have also made a difference. Let me give one example: according to a provocative new book by Frank Zimring on the crime decline in New York City, that city’s auto theft rate in 2008 is 6 percent –six percent–

of what it was in 1990.10 How were those crimes prevented? How much can be attributed to changes in safety practices and theft-prevention technologies developed by the auto industry, by new federal regulations requiring marking of auto parts to deter the operation of chop shops, and by more effective police investigations? My point is simple: a rigorous, scientific exploration of changes in crime rates will identify a broad set of practices that prevent crime, assign costs and benefits to those practices, and hopefully help us invest money and political capital in those crime prevention strategies that are proven to reduce harm. If we are passionate about reducing our crime rates even further by 2036, we will broaden our frame of reference and bring many more sectors of our society to the crime prevention table.
There’s a third, uncomfortable lesson of the great American crime decline: we have no reason to be complacent. The rates of lethal violence in America are still higher than in Europe, by a factor of five. (Our rates of property crime are, we should note, lower than in Europe.) And, if we were ruthless about our science, we must confront the reality that violent crime is highly concentrated in a small number of communities of color in urban America, and in those communities is concentrated among a small number of young men. These men are at high risk of being both victims of violence, and agents of violence.

http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/extra2/presidenttravis/SentencingProjectSpeech.pdf

:salute:

Jess

02-19-2012, 03:05 PM

Yes...even officially in some cases I would bet. Law inforcement uses criminal profiling all the time to help investigate crimes...you can't tell me these techniques aren't taught to officers who have been extensively trained in all of the other police methods.

Totally agree. My FIL was 30 years on the job. Whether or not officers take specific courses, they learn it in OJT. Just common sense.

Aside from that, anyone who has read a book by John Douglas or watched Investigation Discovery can start to "profile" people in their own little way. We all do it every day, though mostly subconsciously.

Profiling: The recording and analysis of a person's psychological and behavioral characteristics, so as to assess or predict their capabilities in a certain sphere or to assist in identifying a particular subgroup of people https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=profiling&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=N1VBT4jtOaSg2AX_la3_Bw&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e497b0ef37f63d8f&biw=1902&bih=901

Shoot, Cesar Millan was doing it like crazy when I watched him on NatGeo Wild last night. He profiles canines but it's still assessing a person (or animal) by their habits and the behaviors they exhibit.

RadiomanATL

02-19-2012, 03:07 PM

Profiling isn't a bad thing, and can be very helpful.

It's profiling based solely on race that is wrong.

:dunno:

ConHog

02-19-2012, 03:11 PM

Profiling isn't a bad thing, and can be very helpful.

It's profiling based solely on race that is wrong.

:dunno:

Yes, many many many factors go into building a good profile. Always cracks me up when people say that profiling is racist, all you have to do is point out that when the FBI is building a profile on a serial killer they start with a white dude in his mid 20s. Because their experience has shown them that is the most likely group to produce a serial killer.

RadiomanATL

02-19-2012, 03:20 PM

Yes, many many many factors go into building a good profile. Always cracks me up when people say that profiling is racist, all you have to do is point out that when the FBI is building a profile on a serial killer they start with a white dude in his mid 20s. Because their experience has shown them that is the most likely group to produce a serial killer.

Single white guy, middle to upper middle class. Late 20's to mid-upper 30's. Educated, but unlikely to have postgraduate degrees.

Jess

02-19-2012, 03:21 PM

Single white guy, middle to upper middle class. Late 20's to mid-upper 30's. Educated, but unlikely to have postgraduate degrees.

May have mother/sexual issues. :thumb:

RadiomanATL

02-19-2012, 03:24 PM

May have mother/sexual issues. :thumb:

Yup.

And sometimes attracted to jobs/careers which put them in close proximity with law enforcement.

Jess

02-19-2012, 03:26 PM

Yup.

And sometimes attracted to jobs/careers which put them in close proximity with law enforcement.

Oh yeah, security guards, mall cops, etc. Which isn't to say that all of those people are bad but there is a stereotype. Ah, almost forgot the wannabe military goons.

RadiomanATL

02-19-2012, 03:30 PM

Oh yeah, security guards, mall cops, etc. Which isn't to say that all of those people are bad but there is a stereotype. Ah, almost forgot the wannabe military goons.

Yup.

Wait a minute....did we just profile anyone here?

Jess

02-19-2012, 03:37 PM

Yup.

Wait a minute....did we just profile anyone here?

It could almost be me.

Except for the male part. And the educated part. And the mother issues part. And the wanting to be around law enforcement part. And the wannabe military part.

But other than that ... you described me to a "T"! :wtf:

ConHog

02-19-2012, 03:49 PM

Hmmm, well it certainly looks like Criminal Minds is a favorite show around here. :laugh:

Jess

02-19-2012, 03:50 PM

Profile this:

3302

3303

3304

3305

Jess

02-19-2012, 03:51 PM

Hmmm, well it certainly looks like Criminal Minds is a favorite show around here. :laugh:

Nope. Investigation Discovery Channel.;)

But I started reading books about the FBI's profiling system and serial killers, etc. more than 10 years ago.

ConHog

02-19-2012, 03:54 PM

Profile this:

3302

3303

3304

3305

sick and disgusting. Most likely confused about their own sexuality. Likely didn't receive enough attention from daddy. Undoubtedly living in southern California. A staunch Democrat. More likely than not an alcoholic.

Jess

02-19-2012, 03:55 PM

OMG! The boards are evil! Every one I've been on has a button that says "My Profile".

They're profiling us ... :tinfoil:

:laugh:

RadiomanATL

02-19-2012, 03:55 PM

Hmmm, well it certainly looks like Criminal Minds is a favorite show around here. :laugh:

Never seen it.

Fan of Michael Connelly books.

Books go into so much more depth than TV shows. And are usually researched much better and therefore more factual in the methodology used.

RadiomanATL

02-19-2012, 03:57 PM

Profile this:

3302

3303

3304

3305

Smart, media savvy, and knows how to self promote effectively in order to capitalize on her on fame in order to be a commercial success.

ConHog

02-19-2012, 03:59 PM

Never seen it.

Fan of Michael Connelly books.

Books go into so much more depth than TV shows. And are usually researched much better and therefore more factual in the methodology used.

Really? It's actually a pretty good show. It's about a profiling team from the FBI. They don't really get into the methodology of law enforcement so much, they kind of gloss over that part, but they dive into the "this is how we came up with our profile" when they are explaining things to the invariably stupid local cops that they have flown in to help week to week.

My biggest gripe about the show is that it's hard to take Greg from Dharma & Greg serious in this show. Sort of like that show Al Bundy had after Married With Children when we were supposed to buy him as a serious police detective.

Jess

02-19-2012, 03:59 PM

sick and disgusting. Most likely confused about their own sexuality. Likely didn't receive enough attention from daddy. Undoubtedly living in southern California. A staunch Democrat. More likely than not an alcoholic.

You don't like Lady Gaga?

For real, I'm not a big fan of attention whores and that's what she seems to be but I like some of her music. More than I expected to.

However, she's not the first attention-monger and won't be the last. One of the first I remember hearing about was Mohammed Ali - he was the greatest, proclaimed it loud and proud ... and got attention. A couple others would be Dennis Rodman and Madonna. Yes, they may have talent in their own right but it's the obnoxious "I'm the best" and outlandish actions/appearances that get them noticed.

fj1200

02-19-2012, 03:59 PM

Profile this:

3302

Someone trying to make up for their complete lack of personality by creating a persona that will provide them the attention that they crave.

ConHog

02-19-2012, 04:01 PM

You don't like Lady Gaga?

For real, I'm not a big fan of attention whores and that's what she seems to be but I like some of her music. More than I expected to.

However, she's not the first attention-monger and won't be the last. One of the first I remember hearing about was Mohammed Ali - he was the greatest, proclaimed it loud and proud ... and got attention. A couple others would be Dennis Rodman and Madonna. Yes, they may have talent in their own right but it's the obnoxious "I'm the best" and outlandish actions/appearances that get them noticed.

A few of her songs are okay, but no I'm not a fan.

Jess

02-19-2012, 04:01 PM

RadiomanATL

02-19-2012, 04:02 PM

You should try to find some of the books that John Douglas wrote with Mark Olshaker. http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/home.php

I tried those.

The Bosch series by Connelly is just so much more....grittier. And dirty.

Jess

02-19-2012, 04:03 PM

I tried those.

The Bosch series by Connelly is just so much more....grittier. And dirty.

Excellent! Now I have to try them. :laugh:

Ever read any of Patricia Cornwell's? About a coroner named Scarpetta? Those were pretty good too.

RadiomanATL

02-19-2012, 04:07 PM

Excellent! Now I have to try them. :laugh:

Ever read any of Patricia Cornwell's? About a coroner named Scarpetta? Those were pretty good too.

Yeah, I read one of those. Just seemed contrived :dunno:

I'm picky. I know.

RadiomanATL

02-19-2012, 04:09 PM

BTW, I mean dirtier to mean messy. Not everything wraps up all nice and neat. More realistic.

Jess

02-19-2012, 04:11 PM

Yeah, I read one of those. Just seemed contrived :dunno:

I'm picky. I know.

You are a tough nut. Sheesh!

Want things to be realistic and whatnot. Whatever. :facepalm99:

RadiomanATL

02-19-2012, 04:15 PM

You are a tough nut. Sheesh!

Want things to be realistic and whatnot. Whatever. :facepalm99:

I can handle it being unrealistic. As long as it's masked and covered up well.

Like Lee Child novels. I LOVE reading his Jack Reacher series. Just as dirty, messy and gritty. But taking a step back you gotta think "How can one guy get into ALL these scrapes?"

BTW, if Gunny is a reader he'd love Lee Child. Just don't read them in order.

ConHog

02-19-2012, 04:19 PM

I can handle it being unrealistic. As long as it's masked and covered up well.

Like Lee Child novels. I LOVE reading his Jack Reacher series. Just as dirty, messy and gritty. But taking a step back you gotta think "How can one guy get into ALL these scrapes?"

BTW, if Gunny is a reader he'd love Lee Child. Just don't read them in order.

The Jack Reacher series is a good read. Not Jack Ryan good, but good.

RadiomanATL

02-19-2012, 04:22 PM

The Jack Reacher series is a good read. Not Jack Ryan good, but good.

different genre. Different mood.

Jack Ryan was all about international wheels within wheels moving countries and plots within plots.

Reacher is about a guy on the ground getting his shit done, with no larger implications.

Hell, in half of them he's up against a common criminal or group of criminals.

ConHog

02-19-2012, 04:28 PM

different genre. Different mood.

Jack Ryan was all about international wheels within wheels moving countries and plots within plots.

Reacher is about a guy on the ground getting his shit done, with no larger implications.

Hell, in half of them he's up against a common criminal or group of criminals.

I'm not talking about the stories told. I'm talking about as literary works. Reacher doesn't develop as a character. He's the same guy in the last book who he was in the first book. Ryan on the other hand we see actually grow from a child watching his father as a cop (Without Remorse which is my favorite book in the series and actually centers around another character John Clark) all the way up to Ryan being the two term retired President of the United States who's own son is entering the spy business (Teeth of the Tiger)

RadiomanATL

02-19-2012, 04:31 PM

I'm not talking about the stories told. I'm talking about as literary works. Reacher doesn't develop as a character. He's the same guy in the last book who he was in the first book. Ryan on the other hand we see actually grow from a child watching his father as a cop (Without Remorse which is my favorite book in the series and actually centers around another character John Clark) all the way up to Ryan being the two term retired President of the United States who's own son is entering the spy business (Teeth of the Tiger)

Reacher isn't supposed to develop. Thats done on purpose by Child. There's not supposed to be much backstory. There's not supposed to be much emotion. Just a guy getting his shit done, with not many frills.

ConHog

02-19-2012, 04:32 PM

Reacher isn't supposed to develop. Thats done on purpose by Child. There's not supposed to be much backstory. There's not supposed to be much emotion. Just a guy getting his shit done, with not many frills.

Which is exactly why I said it's not as good as the Jack Ryan series.

RadiomanATL

02-19-2012, 04:36 PM

Which is exactly why I said it's not as good as the Jack Ryan series.

Just because a character is developed more doesn't mean that it's better literature.

I'm not arguing that either one is better than the other, just that character development isn't necessary for good literature.

ConHog

02-19-2012, 04:39 PM

Just because a character is developed more doesn't mean that it's better literature.

I'm not arguing that either one is better than the other, just that character development isn't necessary for good literature.

That of course is YOUR opinion, just as MY opinion is the opposite. So not sure why you're now arguing that your OPINION is more valid than mine.

RadiomanATL

02-19-2012, 04:45 PM

That of course is YOUR opinion, just as MY opinion is the opposite. So not sure why you're now arguing that your OPINION is more valid than mine.

Didn't I just say that I was not arguing that one was better than the other?

Not everything is an attack against what you think, man.

fj1200

02-20-2012, 10:35 AM

Two fence-sitters had a conversation; was anything resolved?

:poke:

:laugh:

ConHog

02-20-2012, 12:47 PM

Two fence-sitters had a conversation; was anything resolved?

:poke:

:laugh:

Yes, we both agreed that your forehead makes a terrible fence. :laugh:

fj1200

02-20-2012, 12:51 PM

Yes, we both agreed that your forehead makes a terrible fence. :laugh:

Now, if only you two were party to the issue. ;)

LuvRPgrl

02-20-2012, 04:02 PM

You guys really think barney fife is taught to profile eh? Thelocal patrol u itw write ticketsand thats about it. Detectives profile somewhat but patrolman? No

oh GAWD, you are such a joke.

LuvRPgrl

02-20-2012, 04:13 PM

Again, that isn't profiling. That's simply using information gathered..

what a braindead retard you are. SORRY, my apoligies to all who are really retarded, didnt mean to insult you by putting CH in your company.
USING INFORMATION IS PROFILING

Profiling would be if you used that knowledge of criminal history along with other information and suspected the subject was either guilty of or planning on committing other crimes. ..

wrong, THE FACT that a person has been arrested before , all by itself, leads a cop to believe he might be guilty of something else. Why is it the suspect list includes checking 'KNOW FELONS"

That really isn't what patrolmen do, they simply stop crimes that they DO see happening, or have received a call about.

YEA, cops never pull somebody over based on their car, or race, or appearance. GOTHCHA,,,not in my world..

Profiling is a tool that police use, BUT it is also a tool that a cop has to be trained in extensively to minimize the chances of a bad profile, otherwise it's just useless. BUT PREVIOUSLY you said "Detectives profile somewhat but patrolman? No "

You declare that cops are trained to profile, then you say they dont use it.
WHICH SIDE OF THE FENCE ARE YOU ON TODAY?

OH GAWD, YOU ARE SUCH A JOKE.