This thread is depressing.
Printable View
This thread is depressing.
one of these days a cop is gonna kick keechies ass.
I've never had a problem dealing with police. Why do some people have problems dealing with police? Because they don't know how to ****ing act
When you talk with a policeman, you address them as "sir" or "officer". You don't "give them lip" or attitude, or give them a hard time. You act polite. Show them respect and you will have a much easier time, regardless of if they are trying to bust your ass. It will prevent them from treating you like shit and show a lot better for you
I've never had a problem, either (except for that one little incident when I was 15 or 16, which was really my sister's fault). However, expecting a mentally ill person to behave normally is a little unrealistic.
justice.
[url]http://kob.com/article/stories/S324779.shtml?cat=504[/url]
Trooper Indicted on Homicide Charges
(AP) BELLEVILLE, Ill. - A state trooper has been indicted on reckless homicide charges that accuse him of using excessive speed _ more than 120 mph _ when he swerved into an oncoming car, killing two teenage sisters.
State police, who investigated the Nov. 23 wreck, recommended that prosecutors charge Trooper Matt Mitchell with reckless homicide. But the prosecutor deferred to the grand jury, which on Friday returned one reckless homicide count for each of the sisters.
The panel also charged Mitchell with two aggravated reckless driving counts related to the injuries of two survivors in the crash on Interstate 64, just east of St. Louis.
If convicted, he could be sentenced up to five years in prison for the homicide charges. The reckless driving charges carry a sentence of up to three years.
Mitchell has been ordered to appear in court on the charges. No bond was set.
Mitchell has an unlisted home telephone number and could not be reached for comment Friday. Court records did not list an attorney for him, a circuit court clerk said.
A coroner’s jury ruled the deaths of Collinsville sisters Jessica Uhl, 18, and Kelli Uhl, 13, reckless homicides, finding that Mitchell was driving 126 mph en route to another accident when he lost control of his patrol car the day after Thanksgiving. He swerved across a median at 102 mph and slammed into the sisters’ oncoming car.
I've had pretty good experiences with cops, too. But one rotten apple spoils the basket. That goes double for cops. It's a shame that a few bad ones have to ruin the reputation of the rest.
. . handcuffs are sexy!
[url]http://kob.com/article/stories/S394927.shtml?cat=520[/url]
so this couple kidnapped this guy his daughter accused of molesting her, and was taking him to the church.
now the family is in trouble for kidnapping.
the thing i don't get is... why are cops allowed to kill unarmed people or tase them to death, yet they keep their jobs and they don't get into any trouble. yet these people are in trouble for taking the idiot who molested their kid to church. they should've just tortured him and killed him for all it was worth.
...once again the police get away with a massacre.
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting;_ylt=AtGwTfafcgRm0TzWvdAhPjys0NUE[/url]
3 NYPD detectives acquitted in 50-shot killing
By TOM HAYS, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago
NEW YORK - Three detectives were acquitted of all charges Friday in the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day, a case that put the NYPD at the center of another dispute involving allegations of excessive firepower.
ADVERTISEMENT
Justice Arthur Cooperman delivered the verdict in a Queens courtroom packed with spectators, including victim Sean Bell's fiancee and parents, and at least 200 people gathered outside the building.
The verdict provoked an outpouring of emotions: Bell's fiancee immediately walked out of the room. His mother cried.
Outside the courthouse, which was surrounded by scores of police officers, many in the crowd began weeping as news of the verdict said. Others were enraged, swearing and screaming "Murderers! Murderers!" or "KKK!"
Bell, a 23-year-old black man, was killed in a hail of gunfire outside a seedy strip club in Queens on Nov. 25, 2006 — his wedding day — as he was leaving his bachelor party with two friends.
Officers Michael Oliver, 36, and Gescard Isnora, 29, stood trial for manslaughter while Officer Marc Cooper, 40, was charged only with reckless endangerment. Two other shooters weren't charged. Oliver squeezed off 31 shots; Isnora fired 11 rounds; and Cooper shot four times.
The officers, complaining that pretrial publicity had unfairly painted them as cold-blooded killers, opted to have the judge decide the case rather than a jury.
The judge indicated that the police officers' version of events was more credible than the victims' version. "The people have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant was not justified" in firing, he said.
A conviction on manslaughter could have brought up to 25 years in prison; the penalty for reckless endangerment, a misdemeanor, is a year behind bars.
The case brought back painful memories of other NYPD shootings, such as the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo — an African immigrant who was gunned down in a hail of 41 bullets by police officers who mistook his wallet for a gun. The acquittal of the officers in that case created a storm of protest, with hundreds arrested after taking to the streets in demonstration.
The mood surrounding this case has been muted by comparison, although Bell's fiancee, parents and their supporters, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, have held rallies demanding that the officers — two of whom are black — be held accountable.
Still, a phalanx of police officers, some uniformed and some in the department's community affairs polo shirts, was stationed outside the courthouse Friday. The building was ringed by metal barricades. Some in the crowd wore buttons with Bell's picture or held signs saying "Justice for Sean Bell." After the verdict was read, some in the crowd approached officers but were held back; the jostling quickly died down.
After the verdict, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly acknowledged that some people were disappointed with the acquittals.
"We don't anticipate violence, but we are prepared for any contingency," he said.
The nearly two-month trial was marked by deeply divergent accounts of the night.
The defense painted the victims as drunken thugs who the officers believed were armed and dangerous. Prosecutors sought to convince the judge that the victims had been minding their own business, and that the officers were inept, trigger-happy aggressors.
None of the officers took the witness stand in his own defense. Instead, Cooperman heard transcripts of the officers testifying before a grand jury, saying they believed they had good reason to use deadly force. The judge also heard testimony from Bell's two injured companions, who insisted the maelstrom erupted without warning.
Both sides were consistent on one point: The utter chaos surrounding the last moments of Bell's life.
"It happened so quick," Isnora said in his grand jury testimony. "It was like the last thing I ever wanted to do."
Bell's companions — Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman — also offered dramatic testimony about the episode. Benefield and Guzman were both wounded; Guzman still has four bullets lodged in his body.
Referring to Isnora, Guzman said, "This dude is shooting like he's crazy, like he's out of his mind."
The victims and shooters were set on a fateful collision course by a pair of innocuous decisions: Bell's to have a last-minute bachelor party at Kalua Cabaret, and the undercover detectives' to investigate reports of prostitution at the club.
As the club closed around 4 a.m., Sanchez and Isnora claimed they overheard Bell and his friends first flirt with women, then taunt a stranger who responded by putting his right hand in his pocket as if he had a gun. Guzman, they testified, said, "Yo, go get my gun" — something Bell's friends denied.
Isnora said he decided to arm himself, call for backup — "It's getting hot," he told his supervisor — and tail Bell, Guzman and Benefield as they went around the corner and got into Bell's car. He claimed that after warning the men to halt, Bell pulled away, bumped him and rammed an unmarked police van that converged on the scene with Oliver at the wheel.
The detective also alleged that Guzman made a sudden move as if he were reaching for a gun.
"I yelled 'Gun!' and fired," he said. "In my mind, I knew (Guzman) had a gun."
Benefield and Guzman testified that there were no orders. Instead, Guzman said, Isnora "appeared out of nowhere" with a gun drawn and shot him in the shoulder — the first of 16 shots to enter his body.
"That's all there was — gunfire," he said. "There wasn't nothing else."
With tires screeching, glass breaking and bullets flying, the officers claimed that they believed they were the ones under fire. Oliver responded by emptying his semiautomatic pistol, reloading, and emptying it again, as the supervisor sought cover.
The truth emerged when the smoke cleared: There was no weapon inside Bell's blood-splattered car.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jym-RtHHG0s"]YouTube - Public Enemy - Fight The Power: Long Version, Uncensored[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B4xUf05uhk"]YouTube - CONCRETE BLONDE : GOD IS A BULLET[/ame]
I just read the story of those officers being acquited and was going to post it in this thread but you beat me to it.
Absolutely ridiculous. Shot 50 times hours before his wedding for no reason.Quote:
With tires screeching, glass breaking and bullets flying, the officers said they believed they were the ones under fire. Oliver responded by emptying his semiautomatic pistol, reloading, and emptying it again. Isnora fired 11 rounds, and Cooper four. Two other officers who fired weren't charged.
When the smoke had cleared, there was no weapon inside Bell's blood-splattered car.
he wasn't the only one who was shot. he was the only one who died.
if i was that guys mom i would be going on a cop killing spree.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSvD5SM_uI4"]YouTube - Ice T Cop Killer and Body Count[/ame]
i know your family's grieving. but tonight we get even.
[url]http://www.younewstv.com/areas/kob/19373094.html#ynext?vid=a[/url]
this video is cropped. but before the fight, the camera guy asks the cop for his name and badge number. i tried to leave a comment and they have to be approved by the station.
the cops, the media, the court system, the law makers, they're all working together.
i just want you to know that i've changed my mind.
i now am not so hateful of the police.
thanks to them, and all the pain they've caused, we are going to be sitting pretty.
... What? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by misombra [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Are you talking about something in particular?
dm, do you like cops?
No, but if you think cops are bad, you've obviously never met the REAL thugs at the DEA and BATF
DEA agents and BATF agents I hate with a burning passion
my dads a federali and real good at it the funny thing is he dosent really like the regular county cops though.....dads kool he can never really get into detail about much.
I have a great uncle who was in the secret service. He got drunk off his rocker following his mother's funeral and confessed to having run background checks on prostitutes for various presidents.
People suck. In all professions. Its the good ones that make it worth it. Try to surround yourself with people who inspire you. Let the rest flail in the muck if that's what they choose.
nah, i'm gonna fight the power.
This is getting out of control. They are killing more ppl w/these 'safer' taser than they are w/their sidearms. I'm writing a letter to our newspaper & MP:
[url]http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/080723/canada/canada_taser_winnipeg[/url]
God, look at this. I thought these things at least needed to make contact with the person (i.e. you couldn't shoot them from a distance):
[url]http://videos.caught-on-video.com/Player.aspx?fileid=513DC6A2-FF6A-40F9-9893-589AC926FCCE&p=0[/url]
if the police had called me to tell me that they tazed my 17 year old son to death there would be hell to pay.
absolute firey, torturous, hell.
As with everything, there is good and bad. There are good police, there are shitty police. There are good doctors, there are shitty doctors. There are good presidents, and there is george bush.
I think you get the point.
So shut up and give me a hug. :love:
[url]http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8040&Ite mid=2[/url]
this guy ran down an elk on his way to an emergency. i wonder what the emergency was, and if it was worth that elks' life...
Apparently the kid was wielding a knife and refused to put it down. Without tasers the police would more than likely have had to shoot him and he would have almost certainly died. With tasers they had an extremely good chance of taking him alive. Unfortunately it did not work out that way. The fact remains he was brandishing a deadly weapon. That's what happens. I don't feel the least shred of pity for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiReloaded [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
People complain about tasers and pepper spray. The alternative is either a bullet or a nightstick to the head.
No, I disagree 1aj. The police are using these as some 'soft' alternative to using a firearm. Its a slippery slope. They should really be using them ONLY under the same conditions they would choose to use a firearm i.e. as a last resort. They are neglecting alternatives like negotiation & non-lethal restraint. This boy only had a knife. Even if he attacked the cops, do you know how hard it is to kill someone from stabbing? Its pretty difficult unless they get lucky & the police are trained in self-defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1averagejoe [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
One of my main points in my letter is that I think the incidence of use of tasers should be no difference from a firearm. They should only be used as a *safer alternative to a gun*, not to be used more frequently. I'd like to see the data on number of taser use vs. sidearms fired. I bet the taser use is much higher & it shouldn't be, IMO.
I can't find that data tho I'm looking. :mad: Anything else I should say? If you're interested, comments are welcome.
As I say, Grib, its the frequency of use that concerns me. Even if this was a warranted case (i.e. a firearm would have otherwise been drawn), there are many other cases where they weren't. An aggressive drunk, and old man who was resisting arrest for being given a speeding ticket. A guy freaking out in an airport (he died) but no weapon. Most of these cases would not justify use of a firearm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gribble [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
i do. i feel bad for his family.
the cops have no right to determine when somebody should die, especially a 17 year old kid. they're not judges, but they sure do give out death sentences.
if i could kill someone, and get away with it, every time i felt i was in imminent danger there would be a lot of dead bodies on my trail.
If people die from tasers it sounds more as a product fault so that they might need different ones with varying power (e.g weak one for the upset guy in his 50's, strong one for the steroid-pumped armed robber) or poor use (such as aiming for the upper chest or head rather than legs/arms/groin).
As for the kid with a knife, it's a tough call. I'd prefer to disarm someone who's wielding a blunt weapon any day of the week, slightest mess-up in a knife situation can be deadly.
if he was going after somebody with a knife or directly threatening somebody with it, that to me would justify killing him.
but the cop killed him just because he wouldn't do what they say. then they justify it by saying they were in danger. that's how cops get away it.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c_UdWo4Zek"]YouTube - DEAD PREZ - POLICE STATE[/ame]
I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. I never said what they did was right, I never said that tasers should be used so freely. All I said is that there are clearly good policemen and bad policemen.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiReloaded [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Just because of this one incident where a bad police officer killed someone doesn't mean that all of them are terrible. And yes, I agree with you that tasers and stun guns should all be used just like any other weapon, as a last resort. And I'm sure there are officers out there that feel the same way.
aj, we've already determined there there are good cops and bad cops. the good ones don't justify the bad ones. the bad ones make the good ones look bad.
do they get away with murder based on the excuse that there are good ones and bad ones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by misombra [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
What Misombra said. Its not enough to shrug & say, well, its the bad cops making the good ones look bad. This is not the kind of profession where any kind of 'bad apples' can be tolerated. We are far harsher on teachers who sleep w/their students (they lose their jobs) than police who misuse force. They hold a lot of power, therefore they need to be held to a higher standard of responsibility. Somehow, putting these guys on 'administrative leave' doesn't cut it & this is why ppl are losing respect for the police. Its a lose-lose unless they do something, and soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1averagejoe [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I happen to have a lot of respect for officers, public officials, etc. At least I feel like I should owe them that respect, in terms of supporting a necessary societal branch of service. However, I can honestly say that any 'respect' I would give to police officers (and I know several, personally) while they are acting in their official capacity would be more due to a fear they might act irrationally than from a genuine respect for their position.
IMO, police, public officials, military officers, even professions like teachers, doctors & nurses (i.e. those where ppl depend on their ability to be professional) are NOT permitted to be 'human' in the same way the average Joe is on the street. At least not while doing their job, and for some (e.g. elected officials), not even when they aren't. Part of their duty is to be a tangible example of Society Standards (note the capitals), not to grub around in the dirt with the 'rest of us'. That's how one garners respect--to be able to control oneself where others cannot. And this justifies their holding the power they are given by the rest of society--they can demonstrate they are able to wield it with good judgement.
FWIW.
[url]http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8131&Ite mid=2[/url]
Jury: APD Didn't Violate Girl's Rights PDF Print E-mail
permalink
Written by Scott Sandlin
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
A federal jury handed a resounding victory to Albuquerque Police officers this afternoon, finding they did not violate the constitutional rights of 12-year-old murder defendant Jade Gonzales.
Jade never denied shooting her father Samuel in 1999, but said it had been accidental.
Police obtained a warrant ordering them to transport Gonzales “forthwith” to the juvenile detention center, but they began intense -- her attorneys said abusive -- questioning that continued in the valley substation parking lot.
Gonzales testified that her repeated requests for a bathroom were ignored to the point that she urinated in her pants. She was not read her Miranda rights, and her attorney Ed Chavez was never contacted despite her saying “Where’s Ed?” and “I want him to be there.”
Kathryn Levy, the deputy city attorney defending the officers, said police had a duty to investigate Sam Gonzales’ death.
Levy said there was no harm in the failure to read Jade her Miranda rights because any statement she gave police could not be used against her due to her age.
A trial judge dismissed the murder charge because of the way the questioning was conducted, only to be reversed. But higher courts carved away some potential evidence, and Jade Gonzales turned 21 without ever being tried in the court with jurisdiction over the case. The charges were dropped.
I'm not saying you should shrug these things off. These officers deserve to live with the consequences of their actions.
But, you can't stereotype all police for being bad. There are a lot of good police officers out there. It's no different that stereotyping a black man. It's just as extreme as assuming that all black men are gang members. You wouldn't assume such a thing would you? If you do, you shouldn't. Because there are plenty of good black men and officers out there. There's no reason to give officers a bad name. Can you imagine the chaos if there was none?
And don't start with anarchy, that would not work in our society. That would only cause chaos. I respect and appreciate everything the good police officers do. They put their lives on the line everyday to keep others safe. That is honorable.
But I also feel anyone that those that abuse their powers should suffer the highest consequences for their actions. They're there to enforce the law, not break it.
aj, for the billionth time. i'm not saying all cops are bad and we could live without them.
but they get away with bad shit! and everybody shrugs it off and says, "oh well, they deserved it." or "can't let one bad apple spoil the bunch!"
people are just okay with letting the police turn into a gang in their town. crazy.
I'm sorry sombra, yesterday was a long, terrible day, with lack of sleep, I wasn't all there. I get it now love. I agree.
1aj, I saw your response above. I just wanted to quickly point out the key problem of an argument like this, b/c some ppl do make it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1averagejoe [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
The difference b/t your black stereotype and good/bad cops is a big one: A police officer CHOOSES to enter that profession and they take an oath to uphold the law. And all that responsibility that goes with that from my last post.
I dunno about the US, but in Canada police take an oath like the following:
"I, .. <Officer's Name> .. of .. <Police Service> .. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."
IMO, anyone who breaks that charge should be dismissed. If they didn't bend the damn rules so much, everyone would have more respect for our police. Its quite a simple problem. I mean, really, don't you want to be able to trust your local police? I certainly do.