Cops are less than human

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
SouthernN'Proud said:
Sounds like a surrender to me.

Sounds more like a sound bite in an election year to me...

I can't wait for the answer to my question, though...
 

Leslie

Communistrator
Staff member
Gato_Solo said:
I just wonder how the cop is supposed to get the perpetrator into handcuffs without twisting a body part behind them...:nuts:
How's a cop supposed to get rid of the Indian population besides dropping them off naked in fields outside of town?

How's that Indian supposed to prove that? Provided they're not dead, of course.

And yeah, it's happened. Lots.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Leslie said:
But they didn't bother, or didn't in the interests of protecting their own, and this is the result.

Now there's a leap. Almost (if not all) large city police departments have several levels of civilian to department personel.

This legislation is a reaction to several (possibly many) officers getting falsely accused of mis- or mal- treatment of suspects, predominately following the Rodney King incident. The police are already obligated, by law, not to lie. But as a civilian, you may now falsely accuse an officer of, let's say, brutality & you cannot be charged with a crime for attempting to ruin this officers career and/or reputation.
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Leslie said:
How's a cop supposed to get rid of the Indian population besides dropping them off naked in fields outside of town?

How's that Indian supposed to prove that? Provided they're not dead, of course.

And yeah, it's happened. Lots.

You've got proof, I gather? Besides...that happens in Canada. The article was about the US. Here, the minorities get beat senseless, and left by the side of the road.
 

Leslie

Communistrator
Staff member
Right...cause noone ever does wrong down there.
Heh.

Proof...as in conviction? Sure. Don't be ridiculous. That doesn't help the umpteen who unfortunate enough in that case to not be dead and who hence had not a hope of proving anything.

That was corruption, and evil people who just shouldn't have been on that job. But they wrecked it for all the good ones.

And I'd like to know others in the undead's positions, or those in similar situations wouldn't be arrested for trying to get some justice, even if chances were slim.
 

Leslie

Communistrator
Staff member
Gato_Solo said:
I just wonder how the cop is supposed to get the perpetrator into handcuffs without twisting a body part behind them...:nuts:
vague article said:
“It was up to the police department to determine if the speech was false,” Chaker said. “I made a complaint against a police officer for twisting my wrist and was charged as a criminal.”
The article seems to say that the official position was that the statement was false. That the officer didn't twist his wrist (maybe the complaint was that it was a he twisted it too hard wah thing?). The guy says the officer did.

Or did his wrist get twisted naturally as would happen during a handcuffing, as you're alluding, and the officer is lying instead of saying well maybe it was too hard, or no it wasn't too hard, but I had to?

Either way, that'd be a judgement call.

Or was it not false, but simply frivolous?

None of that is jailworthy?
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Leslie said:
Right...cause noone ever does wrong down there.
Heh.

I hope you read my whole post, and not just the first sentence.

Leslie said:
Proof...as in conviction? Sure. Don't be ridiculous. That doesn't help the umpteen who unfortunate enough in that case to not be dead and who hence had not a hope of proving anything.

Conviction is not necessary. Just the word of someone trustworthy.

Leslie said:
That was corruption, and evil people who just shouldn't have been on that job. But they wrecked it for all the good ones.

Which was my point exactly.

Leslie said:
And I'd like to know others in the undead's positions, or those in similar situations wouldn't be arrested for trying to get some justice, even if chances were slim.

Make friends with a few cops. Just don't abuse the friendship by asking them to take care of tickets, etc. You'd be surprised how many of them are nice people, and not the jackbooted thugs you see on the news networks.
 

Leslie

Communistrator
Staff member
I read your whole post...at least the part that was there before you edited more into it. Maybe the US/Canada difference is that your police are stupid enough to leave marks. Ours don't do that.


I did, I have, I do. And bastard beating the man down jail guards too. :eek:

It's unfortunate that a few bad apples ruin the bunch, but that's it. And that's all. There has to be some way for people to speak up about the few incidents of mistreatment that come along without threat of jail of all things. And if a few good ones have to take a hit because of the baddies out there, then that's what has to be. It happens everywhere in society, from kindergarten on, and the police shouldn't be different. Not when there's so much at stake.

Kinda correlates along the same lines as Oh well, we execute a few innocents, whatever. So long as we get most of them.
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Leslie said:
The article seems to say that the official position was that the statement was false. That the officer didn't twist his wrist (maybe the complaint was that it was a he twisted it too hard wah thing?). The guy says the officer did.

Or did his wrist get twisted naturally as would happen during a handcuffing, as you're alluding, and the officer is lying instead of saying well maybe it was too hard, or no it wasn't too hard, but I had to?

It was alluded that his wrist was twisted too hard.

Leslie said:
Either way, that'd be a judgement call.

Or was it not false, but simply frivolous?

Now we have the real question. The man claims his wrist was twisted too hard when he was being handcuffed. The cop said no. The man decides to file a complaint. It has now gone to another level, as the cop is being accused of excessive force. If the wrist-twisting wasn't excessive, and if he wasn't injured in any visible way it wouldn't be, the filer is now violating the law by filing a false police report. That's why he spent time in the Juzgado (Hoosegow).

Leslie said:
None of that is jailworthy?

Not if done in the course of normal police work.
 

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
Leslie said:
It's unfortunate that a few bad apples ruin the bunch, but that's it. And that's all. There has to be some way for people to speak up about the few incidents of mistreatment that come along without threat of jail of all things. And if a few good ones have to take a hit because of the baddies out there, then that's what has to be.


Sad.

We better hope this line of thinking never permeates to our own jobs I guess. Somehow I can't help thinking tunes might change if one of us were falsely accused of something and lost our livlihood "because of the few bad apples".

Or maybe I'm wrong.
 

HomeLAN

New Member
It's already happened in many other areas. Pray you never get falsely accused of sexual harrassment. If you do, your career is toast, no matter what.
 

Leslie

Communistrator
Staff member
It already is in your line of work. The right guy falsely accuses you of the right thing at the right time, and you're maybe ghandi.

Someone falsely calls the police or the CAS on me, I maybe get arrested temporarily, or I've lost my kids for a little while.

There are just some things that we're helpless about.

That doesn't negate the thought that we still have to have things open enough so that people can speak up about wrongs done to them or others them without fear of persecution.
 

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
And no one is taking that away. It's the ones with an axe to grind against a cop, and set out on a vendetta to get him/her fired. THOSE people should be charged with a crime, and now they aren't. It's a liscense to go after the cops.
 

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
And I've been falsely accused. Here stands I still. Why? I document. Hard to create anything to get past good documentation at the time of occurance.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Leslie said:
It already is in your line of work. The right guy falsely accuses you of the right thing at the right time, and you're maybe ghandi.

Someone falsely calls the police or the CAS on me, I maybe get arrested temporarily, or I've lost my kids for a little while.

There are just some things that we're helpless about.

That doesn't negate the thought that we still have to have things open enough so that people can speak up about wrongs done to them or others them without fear of persecution.

All of which points to my continuual argument for smaller government. The cops come & do their job, perhaps resulting in arrest. The more layers of government & beauracracy, th emore likely you are to have a problem. Every department given authority above & beyond its natural state is a legion of opinions waiting to fuck up your life.
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Leslie said:
I read your whole post...at least the part that was there before you edited more into it. Maybe the US/Canada difference is that your police are stupid enough to leave marks. Ours don't do that.

Hmm...so now our cops are stupid, eh? Is this just another tirade about Canadians being superior to the US, or is there some actual truth to it? :p
Even worse...perhaps its because Canadian cops cover up their crimes, while the bad cops in the US get reported. ;)

Leslie said:
It's unfortunate that a few bad apples ruin the bunch, but that's it. And that's all. There has to be some way for people to speak up about the few incidents of mistreatment that come along without threat of jail of all things. And if a few good ones have to take a hit because of the baddies out there, then that's what has to be. It happens everywhere in society, from kindergarten on, and the police shouldn't be different. Not when there's so much at stake.

Once again...this law was to prevent false claims against police. Now that law is being challenged. That means that it will no longer a crime to falsely accuse a police officer of a crime.

Leslie said:
Kinda correlates along the same lines as Oh well, we execute a few innocents, whatever. So long as we get most of them.

Nope. Those innocents were legally convicted...by a jury of their peers...for a crime. That's not the same as making a false allegation.
 

flavio

Banned
Gato_Solo said:
Once again...this law was to prevent false claims against police. Now that law is being challenged. That means that it will no longer a crime to falsely accuse a police officer of a crime.
Once again, it also had the effect having people with true claims face jail time if the cops simply denied the claim.
 
Top