Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Much of the anti police garbage said on the internet is false.. Half truths..heavily biased... Including on city Data...
Said by people who would never repeat it to a policeman...
Several of you are choosing to personalize it because you disagree with my assessment of this incident. Many of the sensational bad police threads that seem to be prevalent as of late on this website lack any objectivity or follow-up as to the real outcome. It got so bad the mods choose to delete them for a couple of weeks in hopes of a reset... Apparently it didn't work... And several posters will never have objectivity about anything involving a police officer... Sad really... And sets up potential situations where police get hurt or killed...
Ask any of us who have worked the street our whole lives while some of you hide in your houses and don't raise a finger to improve your community
I don't know what really happened in this incident... I saw a video.. And as I commented several times I was troubled by what I saw... But I also read heavily biased reporting and I want all the facts... Posters on the internet come to conclusions that are erroneous many times based upon biased reports...
Throwaway lines like he perjured himself..or they will whitewash an investigation tells me many of you have no clue as to real process and live your lives on what you learned in movies or city data... None of which is real
Many people get all worked up and emotional with faulty thinking on this site... Spouting off about rights they don't have a clue about... Have never had to test ... Have never been critiqued upon when used
Reading is fine... I doubt anyone here has ever applied them extensively in real world scenarios
Trolll and such terms violate tos... I suggest you read them so you don't get fanged for stupidity
Well, thank you for the confession! You admit that half the anti-cop info on the site is true! We're making progress.
Yes, we would repeat little to a police officer...because look what happens when you go up against one!
Apparently it didn't work. You're back.
There are many ways to improve a community...including improving the respectability of the police force.
Well, thank you for the confession! You admit that half the anti-cop info on the site is true! We're making progress.
Yes, we would repeat little to a police officer...because look what happens when you go up against one!
Apparently it didn't work. You're back.
There are many ways to improve a community...including improving the respectability of the police force.
We aren't trolling. We have real, valid concerns.
This.
Officer: You painted me immediately as a cop hater. Again I invite you to research my post history including posts in this very thread supporting the police. You are passing judgement on me without knowing all the fact, the very thing you are lecturing us about regarding this story. Again I invite you to access the court transcripts, you would know how to do that better than I do. We can then settle the lying part right here and now.
The problem here is it is you that is being close minded. We have heard multiple accounts now in this thread, first hand experiences that backed up what we all know. The police are corrupt a lot of the time and more importantly the good cops (and yes there are plenty) are reluctant to speak up due to the brotherhood. This is a very very real problem yet you continue to ignore it. By doing this you appear to be part of the problem. You show no interest in addressing this problem yet alone trying to fix it, then you can't understand all the anti-cop sentiment. Seriously if you can't understand why this is frustrating to the public you need to seriously pay attention to how police act in our eyes. And again I am not a cop hater, I have not experienced what others have regarding my interactions with the police. But if I was that guy who got that type of treatment from a lazy, abusive cop when he was the VICTIM of a home break in I sure would be anti-cop.
Why in the world would we repeat our comments made here to an officer in the real world? Are you really suggesting we pick a fight with a cop knowing what we know about them (you)? Now that is the dumbest comment you have made, well right after the rap thing of course.
Last edited by DaveinMtAiry; 03-11-2016 at 06:30 AM..
Officer: You painted me immediately as a cop hater. Again I invite you to research my post history including posts in this very thread supporting the police. You are passing judgement without knowing all the fact, the very thing you are preaching we stop doing.
The problem here is it is you that is being close minded. We have heard multiple accounts now in this thread, first hand experiences that backed up what we all know. The police are corrupt a lot of the time and more importantly the good cops (and yes there are plenty) are reluctant to speak up due to the brotherhood. This is a very very real problem yet you continue to ignore it. By doing this you appear to be part of the problem. You show no interest in addressing this problem yet alone trying to fix it, then you can't understand all the anti-cop sentiment. Seriously wake up.
Why in the world would we repeat our comments made here to an officer in the real world? Are you really suggesting we pick a fight with a cop knowing what we know about them (you)? Now that is the dumbest comment you have made, well right after the rap thing of course.
'cop hater' = anyone who refuses to offer knee-jerk excuses for anything and everything done by law enforcement.
Actually, the word 'hater' has become little more than an epithet to hurl at anyone who offers any criticism at all on any topic. It has no meaning, other than as a cheap and vacuous conversation stopper. It's a lazy rhetorical technique void of substance.
Much of the anti police garbage said on the internet is false.. Half truths..heavily biased... Including on city Data...
Said by people who would never repeat it to a policeman...
I think this comment says a lot about how cops think. Why should someone be afraid to say something critical to a cop? Mr. Officer seems to be implying here that if you don't kiss cop booty, you will have something to fear. Which is the point that many people critical of the cops make over and over again, that the brotherhood uses fear, threats and intimidation both within and outside the ranks to avoid accountability.
Maybe he will come back and clarify why someone should be afraid to make negative comments to a cop. Is he talking about getting a beatdown, having evidence planted and police reports falsified or just the general harassment and intimidation that cops love to dish out.
'cop hater' = anyone who refuses to offer knee-jerk excuses for anything and everything done by law enforcement.
Actually, the word 'hater' has become little more than an epithet to hurl at anyone who offers any criticism at all on any topic. It has no meaning, other than as a cheap and vacuous conversation stopper. It's a lazy rhetorical technique void of substance.
Oh I get an officer's reaction to the cop haters. We see the BLM movement where people presume without knowing the facts, we see an officer shot and killed 2 minutes after buying a poor kid a meal at McDonald's. I sympathize totally with their frustration at true cop haters.
Of course the rub here is not everyone who is critical of the police is a cop hater.
All I see here are a bunch of internet lawyers making assumptions that information is true
When it is I'll convict... Until then I'll continue to stick with my original response... Which appears only a few of you fully digested
I did go to wvsp website and looked at their legal links but couldn't find anything about dog policy. I doubt any department says shoot dogs on sight... I do believe most departments woild allow any person to defend themselves from being bit. WV is pretty oakie.. They may have very restrictive ordinances about dogs..
All that being said... This did not appear to be a case where any force against the dog was justified...and while many of you are all worked up.. No force was used on the dog
As to the female... We have no idea what occured leading up to this.. Just the prepared video by the husband... Which I was curious.. You call police and then are prepared to video them when they arrive... Strange... Especially when they allege they were the informant on the call for service
The reporter as the source... Um..no thanks I want to see all the factual information.. Which is exactly what every citizen gets before I take action. One of you saw a chain.. Hey ..I didn't.. But anything's possible .. But i moot The dog wasn't shot...
And as far as taking phones etc.. Thanks for the education about the fourth..unfortunately those of you that think it applies.. The correct answer is..maybe.. And in this case based upon facts.. We don't know... Fruits and instruments of a crime... Potentially destroyed ..may be seized without a warrant.. So the legal nuance is something that gets argued later if a warrant wasn't obtained. I suggest those of you that are interested read up on warrantless searches and case law... We get monthly case updates
As to lying under oath... You are taking the articles at face value... And if true your assumption might be valid... Me.. I have to deal in fact not conjecture
I've been a very successful career policemen probably longer than you've been alive my friend... And have had a very high conviction fate on my cases... So I guess I have it mostly figured out...but please..do continue to educate me... I'm always willing to learn. If it makes you feel empowered to insult me... Go for it.. Doesn't affect me in the least and makes those who do it diminished
I would be very interested in having those of you passionate about this incident..follow it..and report back about any further investigation or civil case.
Wow. You have inadvertently articulated why some people should never be cops. For the record, I am not a cop hater. I was a police officer for several years before changing careers to something that didn't require me to deal the ridiculous BS the police have to deal with on a regular basis. I generally side with the police unless they've done something egregiously wrong.
First, this debate is based on the information provided in the news article. You are correct when you state that we don't know all of the facts. The context around an incident is rarely reported in the news even though the events leading up to the incident are a critical part of the officer's decision making process. There is no question in my mind that news articles are often slanted towards an anti-police bias. For example "Unarmed black teenager shot by police", while technically accurate, is much more inflammatory than "6'5" 250lb man shot by police after committing a strong arm robbery and attacking police officers". Inflammatory = newspaper sales/increased website traffic.
However, this is the internet, not a court of law. We're debating this issue based on the information we have right now. Your repeated use of the "we don't have all of the facts and the news article could be full of misinformation" argument is disingenuous. We get it. You don't have to keep saying it over and over. So, let's stick to debating the topic at hand based on the "facts" in the article.
First, I'm making no judgement regarding the officer's decision to shoot the dog. As a dog lover, my emotional response to this is outrage, but since we have no insight into the dog's disposition just prior to the incident, I don't think we can say definitely one way or another if the officer's actions were appropriate.
Second, I have no problem with the officer arresting the woman for stepping between him and the dog. There's about a hundred ways that could have ended very badly. Controlling the scene is for everyone's safety and this woman was preventing the officer from doing so.
Third - and here's where everything went sideways for me - there is absolutely no excuse for the officer's post-arrest behavior. Since you're a police officer, you understand the concepts of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Confiscating people's cell phones, lying in court, etc. simply builds a strong case that the officer knew he screwed up and he and his department were desperately trying to cover his tracks. As a police officer, you should be deeply offended by this behavior. His credibility is gone. His department's credibility has been seriously damaged. Any past or future cases in which this officer was/is/will be involved are now subject to additional scrutiny and could very well result in convicted criminals being released.
I understand why you want to defend this officer. Even though I haven't been in law enforcement in almost 2 decades, I still feel myself getting angry when people who have never been a police officer second guess an officer's actions. However, if the article is factual and he lied under oath, no police officer worth a crap would defend his actions.
I once responded to a call for assistance from a fellow officer regarding a CDS arrest. By the time I arrived, the suspect was in handcuffs and the suspected CDS was sitting on the roof of the suspect's car. The arresting officer explain to me that the CDS was in plain view on the floor of the car when he approached the vehicle. Pretty much a slam dunk case, right? When the case went to court, the arresting officer didn't show up. I testified to exactly what I saw, which obviously didn't establish probable cause. Since the arresting officer wasn't present to testify to the probable cause that led to the arrest, the defendant was found not guilty. The judge actually thanked me for my honesty. She knew I could have changed my story slightly and the defendant would have been convicted. I've been in court enough to know that testimony sometimes deviates slightly from truth to get a conviction. The fact that the judge felt compelled to thank me for my honesty tells me that she listens to testimony that she suspects is an altered version of the truth often enough that it was noteworthy when an officer gives up an easy conviction for the sake of honesty. Credibility is everything. Once it's gone, you will never, ever, get it back.
Finally, congratulations on still being a police officer in your late 70s. I'm saying this based on the assumption that you became a police at the age of 21 and have been on the job for 56 years (longer than I've been alive).
Last edited by YourWakeUpCall; 03-11-2016 at 08:36 AM..
Wow. You have inadvertently articulated why some people should never be cops. For the record, I am not a cop hater. I was a police officer for several years before changing careers to something that didn't require me to deal the ridiculous BS the police have to deal with on a regular basis. I generally side with the police unless they've done something egregiously wrong.
First, this debate is based on the information provided in the news article. You are correct when you state that we don't know all of the facts. The context around an incident is rarely reported in the news even though the events leading up to the incident are a critical part of the officer's decision on how to proceed. There is no question in my mind that news articles are often slanted towards an anti-police bias. For example "Unarmed black teenager shot by police", while technically accurate, is much more inflammatory than "6'5" 250lb man shot by police after committing a strong arm robbery and attacking police officers. Inflammatory = newspaper sales/increased website traffic.
However, this is the internet, not a court of law. We're debating this issue based on the information we have right now. Your repeated use of the "we don't have all of the facts and the news article could be full of misinformation" argument is disengenious. We get it. You don't have to keep saying it over and over. So, let's stick to debating the topic at hand based on the "facts" in the article.
First, I'm making no judgement regarding the officer's decision to shoot the dog. As a dog lover, my emotional response to this is outrage, but since we have no insight into the dog's disposition just prior to the incident, I don't think we can say definitely one way or another if the officer's actions were appropriate.
Second, I have no problem with the officer arresting the woman for stepping between him and the dog. There's about a hundred ways that could have ended very badly.
Third - and here's where everything went sideways for me - there is absolutely no excuse for the officer's post-arrest behavior. Since you're a police officer, you understand the concepts of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Confiscating people's cell phones, lying in court, etc. simply builds a strong case that the officer knew he screwed up and he and his department were desperately trying to cover his tracks. As a police officer, you should be deeply offended by this behavior. His credibility is gone. His department's credibility has been seriously damaged. Any past or future cases in which this officer was/is/will be involved are now subject to additional scrutiny and could very well result in convicted criminals being released.
I understand why you want to defend this officer. Even though I haven't been in law enforcement in almost 2 decades, I still feel myself getting angry when people who have never been a police officer second guess an officer's actions. However, if the article is factual and he lied under oath, no police officer worth a crap would defend his actions.
Finally, congratulations on still being a police officer in your late 70s. I'm saying this based on the assumption that you became a police at the age of 21 and have been on the job for 56 years (longer than I've been alive).
Most of your analysis is pretty sound...too bad you couldn't hack it until retirement... Many are called few are chosen...
You ASSUME he perjured himself.... But if you begin reading articles about this incident you will see many of them are a rehash of the original article ... And expands on the womans difficulty in finding counsel...and difficulties in finding counsel to sue
As far as the court case... Based solely on the video I already stated I would have found for the defendant and that the components of 148 PC were not met or justifiable....
Again..we don't know why the phones and tablets were taken... But.. If you are police as you state you know any recording of an event can be taken as evidence of the crime... But the internet lawyers want to argue... The appropriate redress is in court. It did sound hinky in the article about the public defenders relationship...
Had the wvsp shot the dog I would have said..no way..unjustified... He didn't
Based upon the video I would not have used force on the female to effect an arrest... He will have to account for his actions and justify them...
If you read the police are bad threads on here.. Mostly based upon half truths.... You get a sense that some people are way off base....fortunately for many of us we find a easily read dichotomy in the neighborhoods we work... Support...and non support..either way we deal with it..
Are you that old....?....
And yes.. I did start at 21 thank-you.. Actually 20 1/2... And have been privileged to have worked for three great departments... Many different adminstrations.. I have a pretty good sense of how policing works
The garbage that gets posted here by a few regilar posters wouldn't stand the light of scrutiny... And would never be said in person.. The anonymity of the Internet makes everyone the ten pound gorilla in the room
Based upon the video I would not have used force on the female to effect an arrest... He will have to account for his actions and justify them...
What makes you say this? Seriously. Where we stand officers are rarely held accountable for their actions.
Still no take on all the first hand accounts from individuals in this thread who were in law enforcement about how the police often lie to get a conviction? No comment on how that makes us feel about the police? Still no clue why there are so many cop haters out there who simply will never trust you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
