Well look at the bright side, Ironside; you're not lagging far behind when it comes to murdered politicians :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Printable View
Well look at the bright side, Ironside; you're not lagging far behind when it comes to murdered politicians :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
This is something people forget. The biggest cultural difference is the culture of ignorance vs. education. Instead of researching the cause of death, people jump to conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
True, it's sad when your politicians permanently needs bodyguards. :no: Do you have any idea on what minister posts that's bodyguard protected in Norway?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
That would probably be under the struck by vehicle category. Traffic death are probably due to rapid and aggressive driving when responding to a crime and following CR:s theme, general disrespect of the traffic laws as they won't be punished for it (except when getting themself killed).Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
:inquisitive::inquisitive::inquisitive: Are you demonstrating by example? :inquisitive::inquisitive::inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Did you read the link? Did you notice that I excluded all factors that possibly could be counted otherwise based on the given data?
Anyway, that is certainly part of the explaination on why the US police are so fond of the SWAT teams.
Who would you rather tase, a groundhog or a non-compliant 72-year-old great-grandma?
Well, that seems weird, when you see/hear a car with a siren coming here you have to make way, drive to the side of the road and let them pass that is, is that not the case in the US? There's also one saying "Cause of Death: Vehicle pursuit".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
In Sweden does the goverment have the "war on drugs" that they have over here in the States? Id imagine cops mostly die from trying to tango with drug-related people (gangsters, cartels, dealers etc)
And there Vladimir might actually have a point, forgot to compare it with normal traffic death statistics. The US police are simply a large enough group to have those numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Nothing that would validate the "war on drugs" title. Drug dealers are certainly arrested, but in general that "war" part is missing. Even organised crime usually don't respond by gunfire during arrest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooks
Our PM walks alone from his home to the parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Yes,
in many states you also have to pull into the left lane and/or slow down significantly if a police officer has pulled someone over on the side of the road. Doesn't stop people from plowing down officers or running into their cars (even when that car is off the road, with lights flashing. :inquisitive: ).
Traffic stops are one of the most dangerous things a U.S. law enforcement officer does.
One of my instructors at the academy had responded to a major crash a couple year back. His squad car was completely off the road (as were both cars involved in the crash). Someone still managed to rear end him when he had sat in the passenger seat to write some notes. Broke several bones and he couldn't work for a couple months... :sweatdrop:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Hmm, my information may be out-of-date, but I was told that "domestic disputes" were the #1 killer of policemen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
Part of the reason I said "one of", since I wasn't quite sure whether to take what I was taught as absolutely true... The general consensus when I went to the academy last year was that traffic stops are worse. At least, they result in more deaths, especially as officers get complacent since nothing happens in the vast majority of stops. I rather suspect that the danger of injury per domestic violence call is much higher than per traffic stop, but the latter cause more deaths by being so much more frequent.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that what they teach changes every year, like whether eggs were healthy or not back when I was in school. :clown:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
This should top up Rabbits rage metre for the day.
Grand father and pregnant woman tasered at baptism party.
HehQuote:
Originally Posted by lars573
https://jimcee.homestead.com/outrage-ami150.gif
omg... and why the hell is that other officer not stopping his collegue?? that is just insane...
Who sends three or four officers to tell some people to be quiet anyway? :inquisitive:
Unbelievable. They should make a new documentry entitled "Hispanic in America" or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Eh, they could just copy the 'Black in America' or just the 'Non-related to police in America'.
Anyways, in Boise, cops sodomize a man with a taser.
In St Louis, cops pepper spray and arrest a woman who took a picture of them at a protest against government health care.
In Coeur D'Alene (pronounced core-da-lane) cops taser a guy who rode past a traffic stop seven times.
In the same city, other cops grope a woman stopped for DUI.
Florida cops get in traffic accident, attempt to frame the person they crashed into because they weren't driving safely. Luckily it's caught on tape or the woman would be in jail.
In New Orleans, a cop is indicted for lying under oath during the trial of an alleged drug dealer.
CR
Why does it seem that every cop in the US is using the Vic Mackey guide to police work?
Nah. I've only seen a little of the Shield, but it seemed every once in a while Vic would verge on the edge of being an antihero rather than a pure villain. To be a real American cop one's soul must be as black as night, 24/7.
See, first we're screened by an E-Meter. It looks like the one Scientologists use, but the E stands for evil and unlike their's it actually works. Once the most evil and thuggish applicants have been chosen an extensive background check is done. Evidence of having kicked puppies as a child will put you in the front of the line.
Then it's off to a lengthy academy, 4 months in my area (and about to get longer). Here you learn the true tricks of the trade, such as framing people and using excessive force. Of course there's also a "kicking puppies" class, for those who didn't get in on that early in their lives, or need pointers on techniques.
Afterward you don your badge (which shocks you whenever you commit a good deed) and jackboots, then go out into the world to oppress people, like this gentleman here who appears to be writing a ticket. I can only assume the person didn't deserve it. Maybe he was in a hurry today, or everyone was going that fast. Perhaps the officer should be chasing real criminals. One can only know that the man with the badge is in the wrong, since they are irredeemably evil.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...torofficer.jpg
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Of course, in place of the over-enthusiastic police of the United States, you could have the less keen coppers of the United Kingdom.
The Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire has apologised after officers took four hours to respond to a call from two nurses being threatened by intruders.
Amy Overend and a friend made an emergency call to police after four men came into their building threatening them with violence and rape.
Seriously, what a non-story.
If he had come to the funeral and taken them away in handcuffs then you might have a story, but if the police has to let every crack dealer go when he says he wants to go to a funeral that's pretty stupid. It's not the officer's fault that those people were not wearing their seatbelts, maybe next time they really want to go somewhere they should make sure they're not breaking any laws in the process and in terms of seatbelts it's not that hard, is it?
Because the squeaky wheel gets air time.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
One of Rabbit's outrages is over a guy who was tazered after he beat a cop in the face with a flashlight.
Yes, but UK cops are more polite. :bobby: :flowers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
How can one tell? It's impossible to find one. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I'm not talking about that one. I'm talking about the ones who do something illegal and then try to cover it up by framing the victim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Russian cops are the real deal. :smash:
Cop pulls over woman for talking on her cell phone. Then it turns out he was wrong, as she as just had her hand up against her cheek. And she prove she doesn't have a cell phone. So then the cop says she was speeding - going 50 in a 45 mph zone. Now, it is extremely rare for anyone to be pulled over, much less given a ticket for, going 5 mph over the limit. And the cop didn't get her speed on radar, of course, he claims (lies) that he paced her car before pulling her over. The truth is her was pissed she proved her innocence an wanted to get her for something.
So she gets out of her minivan and wants to see the evidence, starting to walk towards his cruiser. The cop takes great offense at this, ordering her back into her car. She doesn't comply at first, so her tries to arrest her because she was blacking traffic or something by standing outside her car. She gets back into her car, and the cop pulls her out into the road, tasers her repeatedly though she had done nothing to threaten him him, and throws her down into the middle of the road.
And then arrests her, takes her to the hospital for injuries and charges her with driving with a cellphone, speeding, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. All charges were dropped after prosecutors saw the video.
:shame:
CR
Not as effective as a badge used as a shock collar, but I suppose investigating police officers when they do something heroic is one way to condition them into thuggery. :laugh4:
Officer saves life, faces investigations for his troubles.
An anonymous person=fire fighter :smash:
A cop lies his pants off - no, wait, he's unlikely to be punished so he's not lying anything off. Anyways, a cop lies strenuously about a man he pulled over who was chewing breath mints. The cop thought the mints the driver was chewing was crack. The cop says his field test kit returned a positive, which is possible, as those things are terribly unreliable. So he arrested the guy and had him put into jail.
But the cop also said that he say the guy buying crack and that the driver admitted he bought drugs. this jives with the fact that three months after the arrest the substance came back from the lab as certified non-crack.
But during that time the driver couldn't make bail and had to stay in jail, losing his apartment, his job, and his car, which the police impounded and sold. I wonder if the cop feels bad about that. Since he lied so much, I'm guessing that sort of thing doesn't phase him.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
CR
Hmmm...comment on the first page. He may have a good lawsuit if the officer lied, but it looks like it was his lack of driving ability that landed him in jail for months and "ruined" his life.
Don't know how they do such things in Florida but you'd have to work pretty hard here to rack up driving offenses so as to get your license suspended 5 years.
"Also, Mr MAy forgot to mention that he sat in jail for three months because the bond for Habitual traffic violator back then was 10k, and he could not get bonded out. Prisoners are not held in jail until test results come back, May just simply could not get bonded out. The police do not auction off cars towed from arrests, the tow company does that. And if you wondering Habitual traffic violator means his driving record was so bad, that his license is suspended for 5 years. Consequently, dirtbags are always looking for a free lunch"
Also, in the spirit of the thread, another link of officers acting inappropriately (and pretty stupidly, I might add).
http://news.aol.com/article/midland-...es-in%2F632950
Interestingly, that story above was deemed important enough to make the first page of the news site I check, but I don't remember seeing this one below. Then again, it's just old enough that I may have forgotten or missed it.
http://news.aol.com/article/2-okla-s...newsaol_inpage
Iv gotta say, those 2 links were nowhere near the "spirit of the thread". Iv doubt you read anything but maybe the last page.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
The first link; a hot chick on a car posing with a officer's m4 (I think its a m4, not sure). Big deal, victimless crime and noone really cares.
2nd one, murder of 2 cops by a guy. Sure, its bad. But nowhere near what this topic has been about.
I've read the thread from the very first post. I especially enjoyed the bit about fascism pills.
I find the thread on the whole to be a rather interesting mix of some apparently real and shocking abuses of power by law enforcement as well as stories that seem either weak on fact checking or deliberately misrepresenting events.
I posted mainly to mention that a recent link might (I reserve judgment at the moment) be the latter rather than the former. The links I posted were done more on a whim. The former because I thought it was funny (while also being an abuse of the public trust by officers), and the latter because I never saw it on the front page of my news link while the former was, and that made me sad.
The links are more closely related to the topic of the thread than one would think from their first glance, however. In the first we have officers in a marked car stopping at a restaurant that appears to be similar to Hooters (something that could result in discipline in and of itself due to the marked car), drinking "three to five beers" each, and then handing a waitress a duty weapon that may have been loaded (unless they bothered to empty the magazine beforehand) to pose for a picture.
At the very least it's a worse abuse than the supposed one in the link posted earlier where a cop was beat in the head with a flashlight and tased the person in response. At the most it's indicative of the attitude some officers get that they can do anything they want and don't have standards to live up to due to their oath, the same attitude that can lead to further and more severe abuses.
The second link provides a contrast to the almost constantly negative posts in the thread. Reading a thread devoted to one side of a certain subject (in this case, polic abuses) it can be easy to only see that side. It doesn't hurt to remember that these are people who put their lives in danger to keep people safe, and from time to time they pay the ultimate price as a result of fulfilling their duties.
It also helps to show part of the reason cops can seem to be so paranoid or overreact in the name of safety, a subject that has been brought up in the thread before. The job is dangerous. Sometimes we have some idea ahead of time like this particular story. Sometimes it turns out to be the guy an officer pulls over for not having tail lights who gets out of the car and starts shooting (or does so halfway through what seemed a routine encounter).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooks
*audible sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Clearly he's lying. He has a badge; unlike the poor, innocent victim. Let's just ignore the results of the initial drug test. The cop in question likely has a video of him buying "teh crank."
Well, for what it's worth, a little further reading indicated the cop in question no longer works on the force and the victims attorney can't find him to serve him notice of the pending lawsuit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
linkyQuote:
May’s attorney said a federal civil suit was filed three months ago against the city. They are looking for Rice, to serve him a summons.
A police spokeswoman said any comments on lawsuits have to come from the city attorney, but confirmed that Officer Eric Rice no longer works for the Kissimmee Police Department.
I'd hate to jump to conclusions, but that doesn't sound very good for the officer in question....
He said he saw the driver buying crack and admitting he had crack. Considering all he had was breath mints, I find that hard to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I may have been quite wrong about him not being punished, which would be refreshing.
CR
A blind man who complained to police about cars parking on a pavement was arrested when he threatened to let down the vehicles' tyres.
Daniel Duckfield, from Narberth, Pembrokeshire, said he and his guide dog had to walk in the road when paths were blocked by illegally-parked cars.
He has complained about being cautioned and put in a cell after his arrest.
Dyfed-Powys Police said it was investigating Mr Duckfield's complaints.
Mr Duckfield, who became blind in December 1999, claimed police were not doing enough to tackle motorists parking illegally on pavements near his home.
He said he had repeatedly complained to officers about cars blocking his path when he went out of his house, forcing him and his guide dog to walk on a main road.
Last week, after phoning officers and feeling he was getting no help, he went a step further.
He said: "I said all right, if you're not going to do anything I'll do something myself, I'll let the tyres down and I'll write 'no parking' on the windscreen.
"I went to the door [and] locked the door. By the time I got 50 yards down my street there was a policeman running towards me.
"He told me he was going to arrest me because I had threatened to let tyres down and threatened to write on windscreens."
Mr Duckfield said he was taken to a police station and held in a cell before being cautioned.
He said: "I thought it was absolutely disgusting. I came back here and I sat down and I almost cried but I thought, no, the temper took over me."
Mr Duckfield said the arrest meant he would no longer be asked to visit schools with his guide dog.
Dyfed-Powys Police said the force had held a crackdown on illegal parking in Narberth last month.
A spokesperson added: "It is unfortunate Mr Duckfield decided to take matters into his own hands on this occasion."
The spokesperson added Mr Duckfield's complaints would be fully investigated.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/8225778.stm
What a shower of bastards. :no:
It seems kind of overboard to stick him in a cell for for even a short period for what was most likely just venting. That said, here where I live you could theoretically arrest someone for making a threat like that as opposed to the people committing the parking violations (ticket at most), even though it would seem to show very bad judgment from the info in the article. Apparently that also holds true in the part of Wales this incident took place in.
What is "parking on a pavement "? Parking on the sidewalk?
The local police department here does crackdowns on minor traffic and parking violations periodically and all they get for it are tons of complaints (and likely newspaper articles about how they write tickets just to create revenue over petty things). Then if they relax at all or focus more on crimes they get almost as many complaints (and likely newspaper articles about how they don't care about people's safety because they aren't writing tickets for those same "petty" things).
Sometimes I'm glad my department is so overstretched that the volunteers handle stuff like parking tickets.
In Georgia, cops murder a Pastor who wasn't even the target of their drug investigation, but had dropped off a woman suspected of using drugs beforehand. They decide to 'question' him by waiting until he went into a gas station to use the ATM to withdraw money, then speed up to him in a black unmarked pickup as he comes out, then jump out with guns drawn in plain cloths. Naturally, he gets scared at seeing gunmen approaching him, so he backs up quickly, hitting one officer. As he drives away they shoot at him. He died a little while later from bullet wounds. The cops claimed they yelled "Police" which, of course, no criminal is physically able to do. And they did all this shooting right in the center of a gas station - you know, surrounded by huge amounts of explosive liquid.
He's survived by his pregnant wife.
Video here.
They could have avoiding murdering him if they had simply driven up calmly, parked, gotten out without guns in their hands and shown him their badges. But then they couldn't pretend to be cool badasses. And what's a few dead innocents compared to that?
CR
So, you shoot an unarmed man in the back and he's the only one even possibly facing charges? :dizzy2:Quote:
JERICHO, Ark. – It was just too much, having to return to court twice on the same day to contest yet another traffic ticket, and Fire Chief Don Payne didn't hesitate to tell the judge what he thought of the police and their speed traps.
The response from cops? They shot him. Right there in court.
...
It was anger over traffic tickets that brought Payne to city hall last week, said his lawyer, Randy Fishman. After Payne failed to get a traffic ticket dismissed on Aug. 27, police gave Payne or his son another ticket that day. Payne, 39, returned to court to vent his anger to Judge Tonya Alexander, Fishman said.
It's unclear exactly what happened next, but Martin said an argument between Payne and the seven police officers who attended the hearing apparently escalated to a scuffle, ending when an officer shot Payne from behind.
Doctors in Memphis, Tenn., removed a .40-caliber bullet from Payne's hip bone, Martin said. Another officer suffered a grazing wound to his finger from the bullet.
Martin declined to name the officer who shot Payne. It's unclear if the officer has been disciplined.
Prosecutor Lindsey Fairley said Thursday that he didn't plan to file any felony charges against the officer or Payne. Fairley, reached at his home, said Payne could face a misdemeanor charge stemming from the scuffle, but that would be up to the city's judge. He said he didn't remember the name of the officer who fired the shot.
CR
Earlier in this thread, a video was posted of a cop interrogating a woman. The cop proceeded to turn the camera off, and when it came back on, the woman was lying on the floor with a pool of blood around her face. (Disturbing picture!)
The cop was fired, for not administering first aid, but not prosecuted. And guess what?
He's back on the job!
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/artic...WS03/908130319
:shame:Quote:
A Shreveport police officer who was fired for violating departmental policy while arresting Angela Garbarino on Nov. 17, 2007, has been reinstated.
Advertisement
The Shreveport Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board's seven members made the ruling Wednesday in the case known nationally for video footage of the handcuffed woman lying in a pool of her blood in a police interrogation room.
The ruling means Wiley Willis can return to duty once his in-service and firearm requirements are met.
"He'll get a year and a half of back pay, benefits, retirement, everything," said Michael Carter, president of the Shreveport police officers union. And as far as he knows, Carter added, Willis intends to continue working for the Shreveport Police Department.
The Civil Service Board ruled that Willis' rights, under the Police Officer Bill of Rights, were violated because an expert failed to record a polygraph examination Willis took as part of the Police Department's investigation into Garbarino's injuries, including a broken nose.
CR
That's some disturbing stuff CR, and pretty disheartening from where I stand. I can't say anything about the pastor, except that maybe the plain clothes cops didn't know he was a likely innocent and for some reason chose to stop him without a uniformed officer present (with a marked car),. That said, once he ran one over I can see why the others shot at him, despite the fact that they may have created the unfortunate incident by not having a uniformed officer do the stop (not required but often a good idea).
The Jericho Police Department was disbanded over that incident if I recall correctly. Creepy stuff but you do see weird things in very small departments in little towns. I don't like it but local government often allows for things you wouldn't see in big cities (not an excuse, just a suggestion that this may be an isolated occurrence. If anything in most cities I'd see giving too much leeway to other department of public safety employees as the problem rather than shooting at them..).
I have nothing to say to the last post. I can see where it may be overblown, and also where such an incident may be a miscarriage of justice. The polygraph thing seems weird, since most police officers think they're worthless (and the Supreme Court has decided they aren't reliable enough to be used as evidence).
All I can say about the cops, the pastor and the gas station is...bravo, bravo
Drug War Fail, Jack Boot Thugs for Teh Win
A Pittsburgh cop got drunk, then assaulted and shot a random passerby after he left a bar. And he's now back on the job!
Quote:
According to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Kaleb Miller was walking on Sidney Street on the South Side about 2:10 a.m. on June 28, 2008, when he saw Officer Abel, an off-duty Zone 3 police officer. He had a gun in his hand and was "yelling unintelligibly and was visibly intoxicated."
The officer, who testified at his trial that he had been assaulted at a stop light when he left a bar that morning, believed Mr. Miller was the person who struck him.
According to the lawsuit, Officer Abel got into a car, did a U-turn onto 20th Street and stopped 10 feet in front of Mr. Miller. Officer Abel then grabbed Mr. Miller by the shirt and ordered him to the ground, it continued.
"Defendant Abel then pushed the barrel of his pistol into the left eye and face cheek of plaintiff, at which point plaintiff began to go to the ground as ordered by defendant Abel," the lawsuit said.
Mr. Abel then began to hit Mr. Miller in the back of the head with the gun, the suit continued. Trying to protect himself, Mr. Miller put his right hand over the back of his head and was shot in the hand.
"After plaintiff suffered the right hand gunshot wound, he fell to the ground on his right side, at which point plaintiff viewed defendant Abel seated on the sidewalk, twirling his pistol," the complaint said.
Two uniformed officers arrived and said that Mr. Miller was under arrest. Later, however, after they realized he had not assaulted Officer Abel, he was released and taken to the hospital for treatment.
Gee, I wonder what would happen if I got really drunk and hit and shot the first person I saw in the street? And ain't it great to know what kind of men they let stay on the police force?Quote:
Officer Paul G. Abel Jr. was found not guilty of criminal charges -- including aggravated assault -- by Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Manning in June. He was reinstated to his position through arbitration last week.
CR
It's difficult to see the rights or wrongs of that story CR, because there isn't much information in the article. Firstly, however, the officer was acquitted. That means he is innocent, and an innocent man should not be punished.
The judge's reported comments however, indicate that there may have been something to the allegations - although Mr Miller also appears to have a history of complaints.
But the fact remains, the policeman was acquitted of charges which on first reading, if true, should have had him convicted.
Regardless of the facts involved and the specifics of his acquittal on the specific charges.....he was drunk with a gun. That alone should be enough to make him not a cop anymore. You don't take guns into bars.....not anyone, not me not cops not anyoneQuote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Your tax dollars at work:
Drug raid lasts nine hours, due in part to cops playing Wii
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_sc...drug-raid.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_294405.html
You may have better sources, or I may not have read the article properly, but it is the plaintiff's lawsuit that alleges he was drunk with a gun. It appears the officer was acquitted of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
I would agree that if this policeman was in fact drunk with a gun, he should be fired and imprisoned. But not on the basis of a lawsuit - on the basis of a conviction in a court of law because a man is innocent until proven guilty. (Not a concept very popular these days, I'm aware, but still the foundation of Anglo-Saxon law).
The officer was acquitted of aggravated assault. It's a fact that the victim was shot, but not charged with anything. Given how bad cops are likely to charge you for resisting arrest if their fist hurts after they punch you in the face, it's a sign of how in the wrong the cop was that the victim didn't get charged.
Another abuse-in-waiting, though not as bad as many listed here, as a police chief tries to quash online anti-police comments:
It's the comments that are priceless, though;Quote:
Police ready to 'take on' commenters, chief says
People who misrepresent themselves as officials in online comments could face civil, criminal penalties, Acevedo says.
Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo says he and some of his officers have been harassed, lied about and had their identities falsely used in online blogs and in reader comment sections on local media Internet sites.
They've had enough.
In a meeting this month with department brass, Acevedo and the group discussed how they think such posts erode public trust in the department and how they have been wrongly maligned.
They have since researched their legal options and decided that from now on, they might launch formal investigations into such posts, Acevedo said. He said investigators might seek search warrants or subpoenas from judges to learn the identities of the authors — he thinks some could be department employees — and possibly sue them for libel or file charges if investigators think a crime was committed.
"A lot of my people feel it is time to take these people on," Acevedo said. "They understand the damage to the organization, and quite frankly, when people are willfully misleading and lying, they are pretty much cowards anyway because they are doing so under the cloak of anonymity."
The effort to crack down on potentially illegal statements or comments that are possibly libelous — those published with the goal of defaming a person — is the second time in recent months that the department has confronted new social media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wreckingcrew
And even one for Lemur:Quote:
Originally Posted by Art.Acevedo
CRQuote:
Originally Posted by simkatu
Of course, if our US colleagues despair of police that are too keen, they might wish to reflect on the inestimable joys of police that are not remotely interested in crime. Trying to get a British copper to do anything but paperwork (or occasionally execute innocent Brazilian commuters for a diversion) is, sadly, a lost art.
Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said the tragedy highlighted the widespread failure of the Government’s policy on tackling anti-social behaviour.
He pointed to the “shocking” claim by a senior officer who gave evidence at the inquest that it was no longer the police’s responsibility to deal with “low level” hooliganism and abuse.
...
A gang of 16 youths regularly congregated outside their home in Barwell, Leics, to hurl missiles at the house, shout verbal abuse and urinate on the walls. Miss Pilkington’s son, Anthony, 19, was held at knifepoint and locked in a shed by the gang. Despite her repeated pleas to police and the council, Miss Pilkington was told there was little the authorities could do to prosecute the gang. Unable to carry on, she killed herself and her daughter by setting fire to their Austin Maestro in October 2007. Yesterday, as an inquest jury returned verdicts of suicide and unlawful killing, the jurors at Loughborough Town Hall decided that the police’s failure to respond to the family’s pleas for help contributed to their deaths.
Somehow, the thought of SWAT teams bursting into these little thugs' squalid home and gunning them down like dogs has a certain appeal.
Oh the coppers in the UK gave up catching villians long ago. 'Elf and safety. They don't persue miscreants in case the little dear trips over and grazes his knee. Then the full weight of 'elf and safety and 'uman rights comes into play. Forget about them chasing the toerag who's just pinched your shiny bright new motorbike, because he won't be wearing a helmet and the little mis-understood sweetie might possibly fall off and sue you, the police, the council and the highways agency.
Somewhere back in this thread is an account of the experience I had last summer with the rozzers. The one where I was threatened with arrest because I was going to take a photo of the troglodytes who were throwing bricks at my wifes head. How very dare I stand up for myself.
Drive down the street at 31 MPH in a 30 MPH zone though and you will get a ticket and 3 penalty points on your licence. Do you smoke? Well if you do, don't you dare light up in a pub. If you do you will be fined, on the spot. And don't think you can get away with discarding your fag 'cos if you do you will be fined for littering, on the spot.
Fancy taking the neighbours kids to the local baths? Oh no you don't. You need to be 'processed' to make sure your not a pedo, 'cos let's face it, they're everywhere. If you do not comply, you will be fined and possibly imprisoned. Never mind then, we won't go to the baths, we'll stay at home and bake some cakes. Oh no you don't. If you do you will need to undergo government training, costs hundreds of pounds but if you do not obey, you will be fined for being an illegal childminder.
Still all is not lost. You can employ an illegal immigrant and get away with it. But only if your a member of the government. If you're not, then you will be fined and possibly sent to gaol.
New Labour. New Britain.
Now that the thread has turned into self-flagellation mode...
Don't forget that the French police operates differently. There is police, and there is gendarmerie. The first are what people from civilized countries expect they are. The latter are a bit more peculiar.
The police are part of the ministry of the interior. The gendarmerie however are part of the ministry of defense. However, they do have police authority over ninety percent of the country and half the population. But...they are an army. 125,000 of them, many of which permanently reside in military barracks. Regiments are moved back and forth between war zones in Africa and Bosnia to police functioning in French suburbs.
(Or is that policing in Bosnia and war zones in Africa and Paris suburbs?)
The use of the military to perform policing functions over a civilian population is a semi-fascist peculiarity that is common in Latin countries.
(Spain's dreaded Guardia Civil - forever in civil war with the civilian population.
The outright fascist Latin American military police, where there is not a single police training school or barracks without a cellar underneath it that in recent history served as a torture centre for the amusement of the military police)
At long last, in the past two decades the gendarmerie has been and is being tamed. However, I'll still take those British bobbies any time of the week.
Canada also has a Gendarmerie. Le Gendarmerie royale du Canada, or Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It has the status of a Dragoon regiment in the army.
Do they have a garrison bonus?Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Only in the province they were raised.
Remember the Oklahoma State Trooper who pulled over an ambulance with a patient because they didn't yield fast enough and he has a rage problem? And he then proceeded to choke the EMT after finding out about the patient? And then he only got a paid vacation for a week?
Well badge number 606, Daniel Martin, is again in the news after hitting a man with a baton during a traffic stop because:
Clenched teeth! Goodness! That criminal is lucky he escaped with only a beating. And did I mention the person beaten and arrested wasn't the driver or even in the car that had allegedly run a stop sign. He was trying to walk past the car the police had pulled over into a driveway to the house, and charged with obstructing an officer.Quote:
James said Douglas was arrested and the officers had to use force because they felt he was getting hostile.
"He had his teeth clenched as if he was going to do something," the attorney quoted his client as saying.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
That's right; the guy was trying to walk past the cops. But they don't want him walking there, and say he's acting nervous or something, so they beat him and arrest him. Gee, I wonder why he was nervous. Maybe because the cop is a frickin' psychopath.
Oh, he's another stunner (with video):
This cop was stationed in a school. These cops are generally around to keep the peace, act as a liaison, simple stuff. And this is a special education school, where kids with learning disabilities are supposed to get help.
So we have one fifteen year old boy who's at the school and doesn't have his shirt tucked in. This cop sees it and starts yelling and swearing at him. The kid starts tucking his shirt in as he continues walking down the hallway.
That's not good enough for the cop, who shoves the kid into the wall, punches him, throws him, face first, on the floor, and continues punching him. In the end the kid has his face bruised and his nose broken.
BY A COP SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING HIM.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
And in that article, the PD didn't return any phone calls. I wonder why...
Perhaps it's because the cop in question, Christopher Lloyd, shot his ex-wife's husband to death in front of the husband's home back in February 2008. A police investigation found it was in self defense. An autopsy found the husband had been shot 24 times. As in, there weren't 24 bullets shot, but 24 bullets entered the victim, who, if we trust the Chicago police because we are raging morons, attacked an armed cop outside his own home.
And so Lloyd faced the harsh penalty of being fired before finding work in Dolton as a police officer.
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!
The reason the PD didn't return those phone calls may have been because....
The cop was in jail for raping a woman.
Yes, that's right. He held a pillow over her head and threatened her with a knife.
It appears the rape charge may finally be the one that lands him in prison. I guess it's hard to claim raping a woman was necessary because she was 'resisting arrest'. But I'm sure top union officials are working on that now, seeing as how the police defending murder and assault before.
CR
I'm not buying the "he was shot this many times" argument so much anymore, after having witnessed police training, Officers are trained to keep firing until there aren't any bullets left to fire. However, having that said, the rest of the case is suspicious at best, heinous at worst.
What kind of weapon did he use then? I don't know of any pistol with a 24+ round magazine. I don't really see the use of firing 9 or 12 rounds into someone and then pumping another one or two magazines into their dead body, what kind of police training is that? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
Scary.
What Husar said. 24 bullets into the guy likely means at least two magazines, as they are few 24 round plus magazines, and even fewer used by police. Two magazines means the cop shot the guy multiple times, then reloaded and continued shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
And those are just the bullets that hit the guy; it's likely some missed, unless the cop was very close.
CR
I don't know, unless you had a good restructuring of the crime scene, it's hard to tell. This man's character is certainly lacking, and the numerous violations he's been caught with doesn't give him the benefit of the doubt as far as I'm concerned, however, as a general rule the x factor of shots being fired, doesn't necessarily equate to willful malice. The fact that he shot his ex wife's husband to death, if it can be made certain he wasn't in danger for his life, does however. And then of course the rape charge really doesn't swing things in his favor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
LOL he shot an unarmed man 24 times in the man's front yard while his children watched. This was not self defense, this was murder.
The douchebag probably showed up to hassle his ex wife and her new husband came outside and told him to get the hell off his property.
What's sad is that the cop's dad is defending his son's actions in beating up the kid
In San Jose, police handcuff and then taser and beat with batons a non resisting 20 year old Vietnamese exchange student.
The thugs with badges got caught on a camera phone, which is why their lies where caught.Quote:
The worst part is the sound.
As you watch the video of San Jose police officers beating and Tasing 20-year-old Phuong Ho, the hardest thing is to hear the college student scream in pain. That and the sickening thud of batons, seen only dimly in the cell phone video but unmistakable to the ear.
It is the kind of thing you expect from rogue precincts in Los Angeles or New York. In downtown San Jose, it is stunning.
In Denver, cops attack and then arrest a man who said he was going to get a video camera to record them.
Finally, in Boulder Colorado, the local police chief decides he doesn't like the annual naked pumpkin run on Halloween. The problem for him is public nudity is legal, so he looks to see what he can charge these people with and decides on indecent exposure, a class 1 misdemeanor 'to knowingly expose his or her genitals in circumstances "likely to cause affront or alarm."' It also gets the person put on the sex offender list for the rest of their lives. Of course, the only people likely to see the event at 11pm are the many people who come out specifically to stand along the route and watch. But chief isn't letting the law get in the way of what he wants.Quote:
Taka Fushimi said a deputy then said he was going to tow away his son's bike.
"Then he proceeded to say if they towed it, my son wouldn't ever see his bike again. And I said he was full of ****, ya know ... He told me to go back to the house," said Taka Fushimi.
On the way back to the house, Fushimi admits he told the deputy the case was one of prejudice. He said the deputy responded back, "Yes, it is."
Fushimi said he threatened to get his video camera and that's when the officer came after him. He said the officer first jumped on his back. Then threatened to arrest him before he pushed him into the family's glass window.
Neighbor Terryron Thigpen said she saw the whole thing from her balcony.
"He just went and jumped on the dad," said Thigpen.
Thigpen said she yelled for police to stop and was horrified to see them arrest and assault 85-year-old Taka Fushimi Sr.
Fushimi Sr. said he was just coming out of the house to find out what was going on. He bent down to pick up his son's wallet when officers twisted his arm and pushed him to the concrete.
CRQuote:
For nearly a decade, naked pumpkin runners did their thing unmolested, stampeding through the frigid dark past crowds of admirers who hooted, hollered and tossed candy. But last year the run attracted more than 150 participants, and Police Chief Mark Beckner fears things are getting out of hand. "It's a free-for-all," he says.
So he intends to stop it.
He will station more than 40 officers on the traditional four-block route tonight, with two SWAT teams patrolling nearby. All have orders to arrest gourd-topped streakers as sex offenders.
...
More recently, Boulder has played host to an annual Naked Bike Ride to protest dependence on fossil fuels. And the Boulder Daily Camera, the local newspaper, serves up a steady stream of stories about clothes-free joggers and nudist gardeners.
Casting about for a law to apply, since nudity per se is not illegal, police hit upon the state's indecent exposure statute, which makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor for anyone to knowingly expose his or her genitals in circumstances "likely to cause affront or alarm."
Given that the Naked Pumpkin Run starts at 11 p.m., long after young trick-or-treaters have retired, and given that the route is packed with fans who come out specifically to see the event, runners argue that it's absurd to think their prank is causing either affront or alarm.
Even if the run does catch a few people by surprise, "the joy it brings overall far outweighs the one or two people who could be offended," says Callie Webster, who is 22 and a veteran pumpkinhead.
Police acknowledge they have not been flooded with pumpkin-run-related complaints, but say that's beside the point. A throng of naked people with jack-o-lanterns on their heads is, by definition, an alarming sight, Chief Beckner says. Therefore, it's illegal.
Those convicted of indecent exposure rarely get jail time, but they must register as sex offenders, just as rapists do. Which seems a bit excessive to Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett.
"A lot of times," he says with a sigh, "these people are just being idiots."
Still, Mr. Garnett says he will back up the police, adding, "We will take the cases they give us."
On the plus side, that girl will think twice about kicking shoes at police officers in the future.
More likely, she'll detest cops and thus the police will have turned more of the community against them.
And in related news, a cop can't handle a 10 year old, tells her she's going to jail for not listening to her mom, tries to handcuff her, is apparently unable to, so he tases her. :dizzy2:
:no:
CR
My friend's and me were talking the other day, when one of them pointed out something interesting. As he said it "nowadays I feel safer around a person in uniform (soldier) then a cop, that shows how our society is". I completely agree with him, so did everyone else. Im tempted to start a poll here just to see what people say.
So; tell me why someone should feel unsafe around someone in uniform?
Thats not the point. Why should somebody feel safer around a soldier then a person specifically hired to "protect and serve" you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
That's exactly the point. Is an unarmed man in uniform more of a threat than an armed man with the authority to arrest you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooks
The 'protect and serve' motto is a fallacy because law enforcement in most of the west is reactive. They are specifically hired to enforce laws.
Although I'm quick to anger, whoever believes what you stated is either ignorant and/or resides in the developing/third world. When someone in the western world feels that way it is less a measure of society and more an indication of how they perceive the world.
Maybe because in some counties they like to arrest 9 months pregnant women, force them to give birth while shackled, refuse to let the mother hold the baby, and say they'll turn the baby over to state custody if no one else comes to pick up the child in 72 hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Or maybe for one of the numerous other examples in this thread alone, showing that thugs with badges can brutalize and kill innocent people and get away with it.Quote:
The most recent atrocity committed by the self-proclaimed "America's Toughest Sheriff" involves a woman who was detained while 9-months pregnant. Alma Minerva Chacon's case has been receiving media attention due to the brutality with which she was treated. The very same night of her arrest, Chacon went into labor and found herself afraid and alone, being rushed to a local hospital with her hands and legs chained in shackles.
Once she reached the hospital, nurses repeatedly begged the Sheriff's staff to allow them to unchain the mother, but they refused and Chacon was forced to give birth while still shackled to the bed. At one point, the nurse asked for them to release her so that she could be escorted to the bathroom for a urinalysis, but even that request was denied. But the worst came once Chacon gave birth to her baby girl.
Still chained to the bed, Arpaio's police staff refused to allow Chacon to hold her newborn baby and then warned her that if no one came to pick up the child within 72 hours, she would be turned over into state custody.
CR
As discussed, "someone in uniform" describes a member of the armed forces. Look before you leap, Rabbit (yes, pun intended).Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Just so we are clear here, I used the term "Man in uniform" as a replacement for soldier. Its common around here (Virginia beach, Virginia; military bases all around here).Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Or perhaps they have had worse experiances with cops then you? Or maybe just more experiances? With soldiers your less likely to have your car searched, semi-interogated for 20 minutes, and then forced to listen to him/her brag about how theyres so many potheads in this neighborhood but that theyre all losers who are going to move to Norfolk anyway (to name a experiance of my own).
Please do tell what you meant by the western world perspective thing though.
My point is that unless you're an underage Japanese girl on Okinawa or a puppy in Afghanistan, you can feel pretty safe around someone in uniform. I also wasn't referring to me, specifically. It is just an odd thing for a U.S. citizen to say. Sort of a western liberal-elitist opinion. I've known naturalized citizens who had reasons to fear groups of soldiers in their home country say the opposite.
Cops and soldiers are both to be feared. A cop will drop you far outside of town without a shirt/jacket, wearing only jeans and sneakers, in a frigid Canadian winter, or a soldier will bayonet a 14-year old girl trying to stop him from building a golf course on her ancestral burial grounds. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
That is so incredibly racist Megas. Incredibly, incredibly racist. (and yeah, untrue as well) :no:
The bayonet was a minor incident in the Oka Crisis. And the cop thing is in my earlier post on this page.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
I obviously was not talking about those incidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
That's a myth that is spread by the anarchist 5th column in the west to force their militia agenda down peoples' throats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
The reactive actions save the potential next victims and despite that, police forces here do have proactive campaigns, programs etc. to reduce crime, sometimes they show presence, sometimes they visit schools etc. all to prevent crimes before they happen. The anti-police of course, tend to indirectly demand from them to be able to look into the future, which is complete rubbish of course.
A lot of the posts in this thread here seem to show the inherent flaws of camaraderie and corporate identity etc. because everybody tries to hide the flaws of the comrades/corporation under the carpet in a mislead attempt at comradeship or whatever.
That was quite the most barbaric thing I have read for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Are there really no mechanisms for removing and charging someone like that sheriff - who is clearly racist, a brutal criminal and is depriving people of their constitutional protections?
Such behaviour would be embarrassing in Saudi Arabia, let alone the United States.