Absolutely despicable behaviour by cops

[Jarlaxle]

You cannot ignore the civil element as well. Depositions are sworn statements, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury. So are affidavits. And I was able to show that the majority of certain testimony was, how shall we say, materially inaccurate. Enough that a judge chose not to give it any weight. 21 police officers in a single department. One, who was later made the Chief. And the one who told the absolute truth -- I'm not making this up -- removed from his leadership position (but maintained his rank) and assigned to the night shift by that new Chief.

All that in one lousy case, you can see how the numbers add up quickly to get to thousands.

It's like politicians and used-car salesmen: there ARE honest cops, but the 90% that are human excrement ruin it for the good ones. It is NOT a coincidence that cops usually react to cameras like cockroaches react to floodlights!

Though actually, I'm beginning to wonder if 10% of cops being honest is optimistic.

[Andrew D]

That's a good point. Try stopping and watching what the police are doing. You can be twenty, fifty, a hundred feet away, and they will order you off. If you ask why, they will say that you are interfering with them.

Horseshit.

You aren't interfering with them. You're keeping a watchful eye on your public servants.

And that's exactly what they don't want.

They don't want you to see them in action, because "in action" usually means violating someone's rights.

That's what they do. It's their job.

And if the case comes to trial, the prosecutor's job is to cover that up.

Not all prosecutors are like that. Only ninety percent of them.

[Lord Jim]

Police officers that I know have told me that the police invented the term.

But maybe they were just bragging.

Why would police officers impart such sensitive information to one who so obviously thinks that most of them are lying scum?

Perhaps they are not the ones who are "bragging".....

[rubato]

The "logic" escapes me. "He tried to bite me, ... "

If someone tried to bite me, or stab me, or hit me with a club, I would feel perfectly justified in breaking out all their teeth.

The question is "did he try to bite him"? If he did, screw him.

yrs,
rubato

[Jarlaxle]

That's a good point. Try stopping and watching what the police are doing. You can be twenty, fifty, a hundred feet away, and they will order you off. If you ask why, they will say that you are interfering with them.

Horseshit.

You aren't interfering with them. You're keeping a watchful eye on your public servants.

And that's exactly what they don't want.

They don't want you to see them in action, because "in action" usually means violating someone's rights.

That's what they do. It's their job.

And if the case comes to trial, the prosecutor's job is to cover that up.

Not all prosecutors are like that. Only ninety percent of them.

I always knew you were a Pollyanna, Andrew. You actually think 10% are on the level?

(Note: I am dead serious.)

[Scooter]

The "logic" escapes me. "He tried to bite me, ... "

If someone tried to bite me, or stab me, or hit me with a club, I would feel perfectly justified in breaking out all their teeth.

The question is "did he try to bite him"? If he did, screw him.

yrs,
rubato

The claim Dave made was that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone is HIV+ solely by virtue of the fact that he/she tries to bite a cop.

Does that make any sense to you?

"Did he try to bite him?" is not the only question. Even if he had tried to bite him, that doesn't justifiy falsely accusing someone of being HIV+ in order to trump up a charge of criminal transmission.

[Lord Jim]

Try stopping and watching what the police are doing. You can be twenty, fifty, a hundred feet away, and they will order you off. If you ask why, they will say that you are interfering with them.

I have been in that sort of proximity to what "police are doing" on numerous occasions, and that has never happened to me, not once, not a single time....

Unless of course you're talking about situations where they are trying to contain obviously riotous situations...by "obvious" I mean things like people breaking windows and setting things on fire....

Or at crime scenes where the "action" is over and they're attempting to gather evidence in an area marked off with yellow tape....

Perhaps your definition of the "right" you have to keep "a watchful eye on your public servants" includes the right to walk into the middle of a riot or the right to traipse around a crime scene peering over the shoulder of a detective collecting forensic evidence.

Given some of what you've asserted as your "rights" , I have to say there are things that would surprise me more....

[rubato]

The "logic" escapes me. "He tried to bite me, ... "

If someone tried to bite me, or stab me, or hit me with a club, I would feel perfectly justified in breaking out all their teeth.

The question is "did he try to bite him"? If he did, screw him.

yrs,
rubato

The claim Dave made was that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone is HIV+ solely by virtue of the fact that he/she tries to bite a cop.

Does that make any sense to you?

"Did he try to bite him?" is not the only question. Even if he had tried to bite him, that doesn't justifiy falsely accusing someone of being HIV+ in order to trump up a charge of criminal transmission.

If he did try to bite him than all the whining about being accused of being HIV positive is crap.

He's a nasty little felon.



yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

There are people that I have known since before they became police officers. I have known them since before they(or I) were adults. They have told me that the police invented the term "testilying". Maybe they were just wrong: Maybe they thought that the police had invented it but someone else actually had.

Why are we being diverted into this? Does it really matter whether the police invented the term or someone else did and the police simply adopted it?

The point is that that is what they do.

[Gob]

I was wondering that myself Andrew, we've sidetracked a bit here.

[Scooter]

If he did try to bite him than all the whining about being accused of being HIV positive is crap.

Yes, I would agree that it was completely crap to charge him with intentional transmission of HIV when he is not HIV+

[BoSoxGal]

Only 10% of cops are any good? Bullshit. I'm an admitted liberal thug-hugger and yet I know that's hyperbolic in the extreme. I knew the same when I was a defense attorney.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Having spent the last few months with many drug addicts who have been mandated there by everythign from social services to probabtion/parole officers to judges, I have figured out that 100% of them are liars. They have all admitted it at some time in the program and have lied to the judges/officers/socail workers , usually to get into treatment rather than face a jail term.

[Scooter]

And speaking of scumbag cops, this bastard held a taser to a suspect's genitals and threatened to blast him with it. In trying to get his sentence mitigated, he is claiming that low blood sugar due to missing lunch (he is diabetic) made him lose control.

Would love to know what would happen to any other perp trying to use that excuse for getting even slightly belligerant with a cop, he probably wouldn't have a chance to make the excuse because he'd be dead or beaten to a bloody pulp.

[Jarlaxle]

That cop should get a year in prison.

A year in maximum security's general population with "BAD COP" tattooed on his face.

[Andrew D]

Much as you wish it were true, Lord Jim -- for reasons that I think everyone can grasp -- neither of those.

Simply stopping the car a hundred feet or so away from them. Simply pausing as I walked down the sidewalk on the other street from them. Simply looking at them from where I was already sitting in the park.

They hate being observed. And we all know why. Most of what they do cannot stand the light of day.

[Andrew D]

If we actually wanted to be a healthy society, we would recognize that the cop Scooter highlighted is typical. He is ordinary. He is just like most of the rest of them.

But we don't want to be a healthy society. We want to be a society that indulges in the risible fiction that what the police and the prosecutors tell us is true.

Collectively, we need that. Whether it is true or false does not matter. Collectively, we need it.

Someday, maybe, we will grow up.

[Lord Jim]

If we actually wanted to be a healthy society, we would recognize that the cop Scooter highlighted is typical. He is ordinary. He is just like most of the rest of them.

But we don't want to be a healthy society. We want to be a society that indulges in the risible fiction that what the police and the prosecutors tell us is true.

Yeah, that's the choice alright...

Either accept as true the yanked out of the butt assertion that the police and prosecutors are overwhelmingly dishonest and corrupt, or believe that they are 100% people of sterling character...



A truly "healthy society" embraces neither groundless simplistic smears nor rose colored glasses.

[BoSoxGal]

I've been posting with all of you for 6 years now. I should think you have some basis for 'knowing' my character - not to mention that thanks to Steve my identity is pretty much an open book & anyone who really wants to could easily ascertain the details of my education & professional experience, which includes years advocating for the underprivileged & victimized in our society. Or the fact that I first joined the ACLU at 14 years of age, for that matter.

But yeah; I'm a lying scumbag & every day I argue evidence fabricated by other lying scumbags, all in service to the oath I took to serve the Constitution & the people who live under the mantle of its protections.

[Lord Jim]

BSG The reply will probably come back that you're part of that teeny tiny percentage that does their job honestly....