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.
Why not read my posts of the years Ive been on here and probably police longer than you have been alive.. I call them as I see them,,,,
To quote vector > good cops hate corrupt cops as much as criminals...
We are harsher on our own
The self serving garbage stories I have read as of late on city data tells me there is a real disconnect between some segments of our society and reality
"Tons of bad cops"
where do you get such garbage.. from some liberal website?.. statistics do not support such drivel
Acts of use of force and malfeasance make up less than one percent of police forces.. and much of that percent is found innocent or unsubstantiated of the charges leveled against them
Are there corrupt police.. sure... are there "alot".. no//there arent.. you are simply buying a false narrative
Even in this forum we have no vetting.. as police do.. so the poster railing against police posting up asking for them to be murdered could very well be a criminal.. or psychopath.. and some most likely are..
Some stats show nearly 40 percent of white males and 50 percent of black males have been arrested by 23... certainly means by default we have posters on here who would have a very visceral and deep dislike of police
To quote fact that came out during Ferguson about police shooting the percentage was SO LOW as to be not statistically significant
"It's an extraordinarily rare event. But the fact is, (in) 2012, there were 12,197,000 arrests in the United States, OK? And there were 410 uses of deadly force. Now that is, I think, three-thousands of a percent. So, it’s still an extraordinarily rare event."
In the comparison Flynn uses, there is one police killing in 0.00003 percent of all arrests -- an even tinier fraction than he suggested."
get the facts.. not the agenda or flavor of the month
I guess the whole point about approaching issues from an objective perspective just sailed over your head. I can also present evidence from sources that align with my argument to buttress your very weak argument but quite frankly, I don't have the time. I will leave you with one thought, if with video evidence and eye witnesses, it is nearly impossible to convict a corrupt policeman, imagine how many improprieties get swept under the rug in the absence of cameras/videos etc. old boys mentality and protecting their own....even the sick demented, sadistic cops are protected. So spare us the noise about being harsher on your own. That's a croc of bull.
There are tons of corrupt policeman and women: FACT! Keep burying your head in the sand. And don't forget, no one was forced at gun point to become a police officer. They chose the line of profession knowing the complexity of the job. So the tired excuse of the danger and difficulties the Job entails is something folks should Have considered before deciding on the profession. Just as I am held to a higher standard in my line of work, the police should be expected to maintain a certain decorum that exemplifies how law abiding citizens should behave. Instead you have them blatantly killing people without provocation, running red lights to grab donuts, abusing spouses for complaining about their extracurricular activities. Etc the list goes on.
And lastly, the need to brand every opposing view as liberal or conservation is quite frankly stupid. My opinion is based on what I've experienced, witnessed, read or heard from friends and relatives. Real life situations. In spite all of it, I know that there are good cops out there, busting their asses to protect the communities they've been assigned to.
Try to be objective in your views on matters pertaining to law enforcement officials and may be, you will be taken seriously....for once.
I can't believe what things people say when an officer is murdered. It's revolting.
I agree about the ignoramus "karma" nonsense. No such thing. And I am an atheist....that respects those that believe in God.
This country is really having difficulties right now. It's unbelievable how things are falling apart.
Your welcome, and thank you for not being an activist atheist who tries to tear down religion and those who have faith.
The irony of course is that in my view, part of the reason we see the degradation of America is due to a lack of religion now being taught in the home and schools.
Heck even if you are an atheist or agnostic, you must admit that religious teaching in this country have helped to keep people on the right path. Many, including myself would be more likely to break the laws of man if it were not for the fear of breaking the same laws of God.
So there are at least a few people walking around without a limp or being 6 feet under because those of faith have not acted on their desire to harm those whom they have had problems with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
That must be behind closed doors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jburress
Hopefully you don't really expect anyone to believe that BS.
Unless your definition of harsh is forcing a bad cop to retire rather than be fired and losing those lifetime bennies.
If you work in XYZ profession that is generally respected, or for a company people like and frequent, you do not want any of your co-workers messing things up for those who do a great job. LEO's are no different, and wish to protect the honorable profession that most people admire.
Many of us have wanted to be police or firemen when growing up, because it is considered a cool and respected profession. So anything that takes away from that when you are behind the badge is an attack on you and the institution you represent.
Personally I wanted to be a cop because many in my family are. However I realized that I did not have the temperament to deal with scumbags, so I avoided the profession. If I had become a cop, I would have been cracking too many heads, and sending rapists/molesters to the morgue. In my personal life I can turn the other cheek when a rare instance crops up that might involve me getting physical with someone.
Doing it on a daily basis would have turned me into a vigilante behind the badge, and that would not have been good for anyone.
As to forced retirement or other such remedies to weed out the bad cops, lets not forget that unions have more to do with that than many people realize.
Some cops wouldn't mind giving the person who dishonored the badge a blanket party, and that has happened on occasion.
But as to what happens to the bad apples is not really up to most other LEO's. Instead it is up to the local DA, and they must work with the way the laws are made. For example, most laws have a natural protection built in to side with the officers because of the nature of their job.
So while that helps to protect the good ones who are engaged in life & death struggles, it also helps to shield the bad apples.
As to intradepartmental discipline, some departments have their hands tied due to union protections. Again that helps the good guys, but also makes firing the bad ones more difficult.
I know the average person does not know or think about such things, but rest assured it is going on behind the scenes.
I guess the whole point about approaching issues from an objective perspective just sailed over your head.
There are tons of corrupt policeman and women: FACT! Keep burying your head in the sand.
I believe you should take your own advice about being objective.
I suppose much of this debate between you and notmeofficer will turn on how you define "tons of corrupt cops".
To me, and presumably him and others, tons implies a great amount. To you it might means greater than 50% which of course would mean a majority of cops are corrupt. To me, tons would mean a large majority, say 75% or greater.
I doubt you mean that, but fellow posters have no way of knowing.
Notmeofficer has provided stats of 1%, and even if you question his accuracy, clearly he objects to "tons", because it does not comport with how he defines the term.
So you need to define what "tons" means to you, to have a rational discussion and to see if any common ground can be achieved.
I believe you should take your own advice about being objective.
I suppose much of this debate between you and notmeofficer will turn on how you define "tons of corrupt cops".
To me, and presumably him and others, tons implies a great amount. To you it might means greater than 50% which of course would mean a majority of cops are corrupt. To me, tons would mean a large majority, say 75% or greater.
I doubt you mean that, but fellow posters have no way of knowing.
Notmeofficer has provided stats of 1%, and even if you question his accuracy, clearly he objects to "tons", because it does not comport with how he defines the term.
So you need to define what "tons" means to you, to have a rational discussion and to see if any common ground can be achieved.
I Don't have the time for your tired tedious drivel. Some of us have a life outside the net and can't spend hours arguing so move on please .....not interested.
I Don't have the time for your tired tedious drivel. Some of us have a life outside the net and can't spend hours arguing so move on please .....not interested.
Classic response from someone who deals in exaggeration/hyperbole, but refuses to define or quantify what your own terms mean.
All it would have taken is one sentence saying "a ton to me means approximately ___%" and that would be it.
Instead you make a longer replay explaining why you do not intend to reply with the requested information.
So another poster challenges your rhetoric by supplying statistics, you deride them, then repeat a term which is clearly inaccurate.
I come along, and giving you some benefit of the doubt ask you to define (at least a ballpark figure) the term that the other poster objects to, and you decide to tuck tail and run.
Therefore I and others are left to conclude that you have been exposed, and are scurrying away from the daylight.
If the term "ton" means XYZ to you, it clearly is an inaccurate term aside from it's obvious lack of application (weight vs. numbers).
So few innocent people are killed (of any color) by LE that you must exaggerate the numbers to try and get some traction on a perceived problem, that is statistically insignificant.
`
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.
