Let's argue about Mike Brown!

FellOpenIan said:
I say this as someone which genuinely hates both parties:

A lot of these recent racially charged incidents have happened in areas which are controlled by Democrats either federally and/or locally. There are, of course, exceptions but to paint Republicans as 'racist white men' in the face of a Democrat president and a Democrat attorney general and Democrat governors and Democrat prosecutors and Democrat mayors is disingenuous to say the very least.
Click to expand...
Only if the Grand Juries are representative of the area, most of all the area are usually white republican neighborhoods.

Staten Island is a predominately republican white neighborhood/borough in the mist of a city that is primary democrats. The Grand Juries are pulled for the borough of the crime.

 
[quote name="Finger_Shocker" post="12298356" timestamp="1417677992"]Why don't you pay attention or read properly, but when you start posting info from Fox News I don't expect any intelligence level from you..

A majority of old white people, did I say ALL? I said a "majority" of those people in the old white category are racist... Some Vs. All unless you don't understand the difference

And for a person who was posting percentages do you understand the difference btw a HIGH MAJORITY vs. ALL

Thank for wasting my time to call you stupid :)[/quote]
Oh, so I post a statistic that I'm curious about (the violence brought down 70% by LE) and even question the source in my statement, and that drops my intelligence? Haaaa...

Okay. So, grouping people together isn't stereotyping or racist. If I said "blacks like *insert something here*", that's fine because I didn't say all now?

You're a fucking hypocrit and you know it. Lumping groups together without considering the individual.

Ha... good job, troll.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really hope that people understand that there's a certain point where arguing for most everyone involved being of a certain persuasion results in a return to segregation.

 
Fearia said:
Oh, so I post a statistic that I'm curious about (the violence brought down 70% by LE) and even question the source in my statement, and that drops my intelligence? Haaaa... Okay. So, grouping people together isn't stereotyping or racist. If I said "blacks like *insert something here*", that's fine because I didn't say all now? You're a fucking hypocrit and you know it. Lumping groups together without considering the individual. Ha... good job, troll.
Click to expand...
You posted stats from a known BULLSHIT news organization http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fox_News

This is the same outlet that purposely placed a D in front of a known R politician, because that said politician didn't follow the "conservative" status quo

And while the link prove Fox News stats and numbers are fudged

But yet the FBI don't even have any accurate records of police shootings

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/03/hundreds-officer-involved-homicides-not-recorded-by-police-report-says/

http://online.wsj.com/articles/hundreds-of-police-killings-are-uncounted-in-federal-statistics-1417577504

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/08/how-many-police-shootings-a-year-no-one-knows/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-police-shootings-ferguson-brown-perspec-1204-jm-20141203-story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States

So where the FARK is Fox News getting there stats from when even the FBI don't know what the fark is going on in police state America?

And you posting nonsense as "facts" in light of the numerous articles that contradicts everything you believe shows your lack of intelligence

Again where in the world is FOX NEWS getting its sources and stats from? Not any truthful/accurate measure that's for sure

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-the-police-kill-each-year/

I don't need to repeat again how ignorant you are do I?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name="Finger_Shocker" post="12298403" timestamp="1417682709"]You posted stats from a known BULLSHIT news organization http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fox_News

This is the same outlet that purposely placed a D in front of a known R politician, because that said politician didn't follow the "conservative" status quo

And while the link prove Fox News stats and numbers are fudged
But yet the FBI don't even have records of police shootings

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/03/hundreds-officer-involved-homicides-not-recorded-by-police-report-says/
http://online.wsj.com/articles/hundreds-of-police-killings-are-uncounted-in-federal-statistics-1417577504
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/08/how-many-police-shootings-a-year-no-one-knows/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-police-shootings-ferguson-brown-perspec-1204-jm-20141203-story.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States


So where the FARK is Fox News getting there stats from when even the FBI don't know what the fark is going on in police state America?
And you posting nonsense as "facts" in light of the numerous articles that contradicts everything you believe shows your lack of intelligence[/quote]
Do you know how to read? I outright said I'd be interested to find out more on the subject from a more reputable source. For fucks sake, kid, it's not that hard to understand.
 
Fearia said:
Do you know how to read? I outright said I'd be interested to find out more on the subject from a more reputable source. For fucks sake, kid, it's not that hard to understand.
Click to expand...
My links REPUTABLE enough for you ?

Problem is you posted shit that other people ( namely those right leaning and republicans ) tend to believe as fact.

Again how can FOX NEWS post stats and label it as from the FBI report when even the FBI don't have records of such things...

Plagiarism is wrong, but when you start stamping "legitimate sounding sources" to a made up info/stats article you are trying to put credibility for, that should be a farking crime

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again while a simple google search would of turn up more vaild articles done by LEGITIMATE journalist ( who aren't afraid to admit they don't have accurate numbers ), you instead posted FOX NEWS  ( yea way to go mr. impartiality ) who admit their numbers/stats are accurate .... LOL !!! you sir take the cake

Again http://thefreethoughtproject.com/americans-killed-cops-outnumber-americans-killed-iraq-war/

Again http://thefreethoughtproject.com/americans-killed-cops-outnumber-americans-killed-iraq-war/

Again http://thefreethoughtproject.com/americans-killed-cops-outnumber-americans-killed-iraq-war/

Again http://thefreethoughtproject.com/americans-killed-cops-outnumber-americans-killed-iraq-war/

and farking again http://thefreethoughtproject.com/americans-killed-cops-outnumber-americans-killed-iraq-war/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since I had time to do it now, I looked a bit into it.

There are stats on the shootings, but they're a crapshoot because the data is all self-reported.  That's where they got their numbers from.

If you said that when I mentioned earlier that I'd like to hear more on this from a more reputable source, that'd of been, you know, awesome, and actually pushed the conversation further.  But hey, apparently me posting a random image that I saw and inquiring about it is a fucking craaazzzyyyy thing.  All the while, you can lump groups of people together and accuse everyone else of being racist.

You have to be a troll.

There should definitely be some more oversight.  Outside agencies need to investigate OIS events, and those agencies should be the ones reporting.

Re-fucking-read what I posted earlier, troll.  It was a post from my mobile phone, stating something along the lines of "I find this stat interesting.  I'd like to see more on it from a non-shitty source."  The Dummies Translation for Finger_Shocker's version:  "Some dude posted this on Facebook.  I want to find out more about this, like where they got their numbers from and how accurate they are.  FOX News, especially Bill O' Reilly, is shit, but it cites actual credible sources at the bottom of their pages.  Anyone know more on this, seeing as I'm busy doing things?"

Did I claim it was fact at any point?  No.  I said I find it interesting, and want to know more about it.

Why don't you continue to blathe on about how all people in one group are bad bad people again?

 
This is who one should consider heroic or ever be called a hero:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2806942/At-two-hurt-student-opens-fire-school-cafeteria-kills-himself.html

This is what a coward and criminal and a shame to ever be entrusted with the public safety:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/cops-who-shot-tamir-rice-didnt-give-first-aid.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFNFLCR-h_w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ka4oKu1jo

On a side note:  ( just the similar only with role reversal )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p7hIE4uJAQ

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/26/cleveland-video-tamir-rice-shooting-police

 
"Respect and obey" keeps coming up, especially as I heard it on the radio. They fail to see the irony in that statement, since this country is based on neither of those principles.

 
From the CSS server I was just playing in:

7zJvDIK.jpg


 
Fearia said:
Deflect much? Accuse everyone who says "justified" of racism, but only bring up white on black situations. Guess what? Justified self defense goes across all races. But instead of bringing up valid cases of all kinds, you deflect and blame racism because of the cases brought up.I had a cousin in law die at the hands of officers due to his actions. Maybe I'm calloused, but it was a justified shoot still based off the evidence I've heard. I didn't cry out against the officers because he sealed his own fate by his actions.But hey, racism! Deflect responsibility!
Click to expand...
Nice try but I'm only accusing GBAstar
 
[quote name="usickenme" post="12300456" timestamp="1417749123"]Nice try but I'm only accusing GBAstar[/quote]
This still applies.
 
Fearia said:
New topic:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uvjMwz8K56M

This is why we can't have nice things. And why officers don't trust that "it's just a toy". If you hold it like a weapon, it's a weapon.
Click to expand...
I meant to comment on this yesterday...but HOLY fuck! That looks like something you'd see in a Batman movie or something. i mean, I guess as far as concealment goes, somebody could just walk around with a hand grenade in their pocket and you'd never know either. But this world, man. So messed up.

 
Fearia said:
Speaking of Eric Garner, here's an interesting read:

http://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/2odvre/the_pernicious_myth_of_if_you_can_speak_you_can/

The long short: If you can talk, that doesn't mean you can breathe. It's a "common sense" fallacy.

There needs to be some answers on why there was no indictment on that case . . .
Click to expand...
Yeah...this one I'm having a much harder time seeing the officer's side on. There's video footage. He was a big guy...no question. But they had him outnumbered as well. Yes, he was resisting. He was saying "Don't touch me."...which yeah, isn't really up to him. But they DEFINITELY strong-armed him into submission. I don't think there was any intent to kill him...but given the way he was taken down and his medical history, it led to a horrible, unfortunate event.

It was basically an accident. But so is taking your eyes off the road and running over somebody's kid. It's still terrible and you're still responsible for it. I don't understand why the NYPD wasn't responsible for a wrongful death here. It seems that there's enough evidence to suggest the guy wasn't a serious danger to anybody.

This is why each case has to be evaluated on an individual basis. Just because Darren Wilson wasn't indicted doesn't mean no officer should ever be indicted. If you're in the wrong, you're in the wrong. Sometimes it's going to be Michael Brown. And sometimes it's going to be the NYPD. Now, I don't know everything about the Garner case, and maybe they have some way to justify it. But to me, this is WAY more questionable than what happened in Ferguson.

 
[quote name="n8rockerasu" post="12303544" timestamp="1417860723"]Yeah...this one I'm having a much harder time seeing the officer's side on. There's video footage. He was a big guy...no question. But they had him outnumbered as well. Yes, he was resisting. He was saying "Don't touch me."...which yeah, isn't really up to him. But they DEFINITELY strong-armed him into submission. I don't think there was any intent to kill him...but given the way he was taken down and his medical history, it led to a horrible, unfortunate event.

It was basically an accident. But so is taking your eyes off the road and running over somebody's kid. It's still terrible and you're still responsible for it. I don't understand why the NYPD wasn't responsible for a wrongful death here. It seems that there's enough evidence to suggest the guy wasn't a serious danger to anybody.

This is why each case has to be evaluated on an individual basis. Just because Darren Wilson wasn't indicted doesn't mean no officer should ever be indicted. If you're in the wrong, you're in the wrong. Sometimes it's going to be Michael Brown. And sometimes it's going to be the NYPD. Now, I don't know everything about the Garner case, and maybe they have some way to justify it. But to me, this is WAY more questionable than what happened in Ferguson.[/quote]
Couldn't agree more. It's why I'd like to see what was presented to the grand jury. I'm wondering if that will ever come out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of the recent police cases, Garner is top to bottom the most severe in terms of excessive force by the police. In a sense, it's almost too bad that this case has hit the media last of the 3 cases because it's the absolute worst of the 3 and yet the media fatigue for the average person will likely make them tune it out.

First off, it doesn't even sound like they had reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause needed for an arrest. The only facts that seem to support a belief of criminal activity is that they had runins with him in the past. It sounds as if they didn't even have a particularized suspicion in this particular instance, at all. Essentially, the arrest itself was completely bogus from the beginning.

Nevertheless, they began using force on him by applying a move banned by their own department, a chokehold. No mention of why they kept him in the choke hold, no mention of why they kept in in so long. Now maybe it was because of his struggle to breath but still they should have had the sense at that time to get him cuffed rather than continue to strangle his breathing.

So then we have a situation where the officers claim they immediately call an ambulance for him. But, they were then later contradicted by secondary video which shows Garner laying motionless for a period of time before the ambulance even arrives.

Now, it was pretty clearly not a premeditated or even intentional killing. It's exceedingly rare that an officer would be involved in hiding behind their badge to go out and intentionally murder someone. It had happened, yes, but not here I don't think. Instead, there was clearly some kind of negligent homicide at play. For an officer to use a specifically banned move that pretty clearly directly contributed to an individual's death and to not be held accountable at all, aside from being placed on desk duty (temporary, permanent we just don't know) is a complete farce.

It really is too bad that Garner is being painted as the least sympathetic victim given his age and extensive criminal background because he was clearly the most victimized. As best I've been able to tell he wasn't even aware he was under arrest, they just sort of jumped on him while questioning him. Of course he's gonna start resisting to a certain extent when he's being strangled and compressed. But of course, there's the gung-ho police mentality of any movement is resisting arrest so let's beat the shit out of him.

Disgusting, an absolutely disgusting case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree. It's stupid that the media blew their wad on cases where the "victims" were generally proven to be the aggressors. Even in the Tamir Rice case, it at least APPEARED that he was a threat. In the Garner case, he's just standing there. Sure, his movement starts to get a little spazzy as he's getting worked up. But he hardly even raises his voice.

I had even forgotten about that choke being banned for the NYPD. Technically, if executed properly, a rear naked choke is a great way to subdue a person (assuming you also let go as soon as they're unconscious), but this went way beyond that. Continuous choking + 400lbs + knee in the back is not a smart combination.

They talk about him selling illegal cigarettes and I guess that's why they were hassling him. But it really does make you wonder how much more there could have been that would warrant handling the situation that way. It totally came off as a "just get it over with" act of aggression...and it completely backfired. I'd love to know the reasoning on why there was no wrongdoing there.

For some reason, the choke made me think of this video. It's kind of sad that this guy kept his composure and handled the potentially hostile situation better than the NYPD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJX9QnrZtfc

 
So they're reclassifying the Eric Garner "chokehold" as a "takedown" so as it would seem that the officer in question wasn't doing anything illegal according to police standards. I am getting tired of the police talking heads who act as belligerent than the protesters combined.

 
detectiveconan16 said:
So they're reclassifying the Eric Garner "chokehold" as a "takedown" so as it would seem that the officer in question wasn't doing anything illegal according to police standards. I am getting tired of the police talking heads who act as belligerent than the protesters combined.
Click to expand...
I guess they're trying to argue that it wasn't the initial hold that caused his death...but the events that happened after it. That's probably technically true. But it really feels like semantics. To try to make it look like these officers didn't directly cause Garner's death is a crock of shit. Unlike the Wilson/Brown case...where you could at least justify the officer's response, they can't here...so they're going to act like the guy just happened to die while they were "doing their job". That's low, man.

 
love how they go we have the right to walk off our jobs and nothing can be done to us.   fuck these people,  then again what jobs  LOL i guess that means not walking to your mailbox to get your  foodstamps

 
Any evidence that the Michael Brown shooting was racially motivated? If not, then protesting it as if it was a KKK lynching is ridiculous. Look up the Lemrick Nelson stabbing case to see how indictments can go crazy.

 
I saw the Tamir Rice autopsy was released. Died from a single shot to the abdomen. Was 5'7", 195lbs. That is a BIG freaking 12 year old. I can't really blame them for not thinking he was a kid. Now, driving up on him like they're Starsky and Hutch and just firing immediately, I don't know. That's how you treat someone who is an immiment threat. At the same time, he hadn't actually done anything yet...so is that type of response reasonable? I don't know. It feels "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

In a society where we have school shootings, terrorism, and even kids trying to rob banks with toy guns (http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-youngsters-try-rob-bank-toy-guns-120119734.html), maybe kids playing with fake objects that alarm the public isn't a good idea anymore.

I mean, I had toy guns as a kid. But I don't remember running around town waving them at people. It's just weird the things we're ok with our kids doing because "it's pretend". Why don't we have toy bombs or toy abortion kits? It feels like the stakes are just too high now to be dicking around with toy guns.

In a way, it reminds me of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY4HObQw5Go

You're giving a certain appearance that warrants a response. And even if it winds up being a false alarm and a waste of time, ignoring it entirely would be way worse.

 
More responsible reporting from the media here: "Undercover Cop Pulls Gun On Protestors".

http://mashable.com/2014/12/11/undercover-cop-oakland-protests/

Yup...protestors...who attacked them from behind, pulled the officer's hoodie off, punched him in the back of the head, and kicked him in the head while he was on the ground. Protestors...pulled a gun on "protestors".

More headlines to stir people who don't read the actual article into a frenzy with. Love it.

 
First of all, according to other sources these two undercovers were agitating/encouraging other protestors to commit crimes, when other protestors started calling them out on it and instead try to stop them, they were met with one of them pulling a gun out.

So maybe if you care to also listen to the other side of the story ( you know instead of the ones that copS' usually invent ) you might actually not believe everything that comes out of LEO's mouth.

I mean all you jokers complain about how untrustworthy our gov't is and yet when cops' say something you gobble it up like they shitted gold in front of you.   Who you fucking think the cops' work FOR? 

I mean "undercover" cops would never try to incite violence would they:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/undercover-lied-role-biker-beatdown-suv-driver-source-article-1.1479369

enjoy !!!!

But I'm mistaken, cops shit gold and that shit is pure as gold and we need to eat that shit up ....  Standing up to AUTHORITY  was what build this farking country of ours, now we are more whipped then even whipped cream.  

How dare the police go on TV and demand that us, our mayor, and president should respect the police and how all these protestors have hurt police moral.

Hey maybe when you stop killing people and beating people and robbing people, people might not have so much beef with you.  I mean in the 10 years after 9/11 police have committed over FIVE THOUSAND homicides of US citizens ( not to mention other assaults that don't get national attention ), one should be concern

 
I believe impersonating a police officer is A CRIME, yet a police officer impersonation a "protesting rioter" is a non-punishable offense

And why in the world would you need to be undercover in a protest to begin with, unless there are ulterior motives that they want to incite.

If you already had a police presence watching over the protestors, why are they injecting undercover into the mix, unless the undercovers are meant to incite people to commit acts of violence, you know and in ENTRAPMENT

 
Again WHO POLICE THE POLICE,   you don't see protestors dressing up as cops and arresting corrupt/bad cops do you?

So again who is there to arrest bad police, oh right prosecutors ( the same ones who work with police )

Again here is a brain twisters for you.

Defense counsel/judges cannot or/and are usually bar from proceeding in trials if there is a known bias/personal association ( i.e CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ) for the defendants,  I mean our laws make it farking clear that in order to have a fair trial, all parties involves must not have a personal association ( I.e  CONFLICT OF INTEREST ) with any of the plaintiff/defendants

But yet we are so totally ok with letting the same prosecutors and judges who work side by side with LEO everyday to prosecute and punish the people they bring in , with letting them police themselves... LOL !!!!!!!! you got to be fucking kidding me

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/prosecutors-police-inherent-conflict-our-courts

 
Yes...the people who hate the police said the police were "agitating" the protestors. Totally credible. Maybe instead of jumping and assaulting them, they take out their phones and record this behavior? Then, they present that evidence to the local media. This is how intelligent human beings behave (see: Eric Garner video).

How can you not see the ridiculous double standard you lay out in almost every post where you criticize people for believing what the police say...and then try to prove your point using what the protestors say. If all you have is "your word vs theirs", you're going to lose every damn time. Seriously, that's why the Garner case seems to be the biggest crock of shit. There's solid, irrefutable proof, and they still somehow let the guy off. More hell should be raised about that than any of this other "My friend's brother's uncle said the cop used the n word" nonsense.

I'm not a cop lover. I'm 99.9% on Eric Garner's family's side. I've seen and read very little that would justify how the NYPD handled that situation. Sufficiently prove your case, and I'll cheer my nuts off for your "team". But I'm not going to crucify a guy because of hearsay.

And yeah, impersonating a police officer...to give the appearance that you have authority that you don't have is illegal. Impersonating a dumbass trying to get attention is not illegal and happens all the time. Again, provide some real evidence that that was being used to manipulate a situation and we can talk. The reports I've seen state that once their cover was blown, they tried to leave, and were interfered with and subsequently attacked.

Justify that behavior for me and I'll concede my argument.

 
n8rockerasu said:
Yes...the people who hate the police said the police were "agitating" the protestors. Totally credible. Maybe instead of jumping and assaulting them, they take out their phones and record this behavior? Then, they present that evidence to the local media. This is how intelligent human beings behave (see: Eric Garner video).

How can you not see the ridiculous double standard you lay out in almost every post where you criticize people for believing what the police say...and then try to prove your point using what the protestors say. If all you have is "your word vs theirs", you're going to lose every damn time. Seriously, that's why the Garner case seems to be the biggest crock of shit. There's solid, irrefutable proof, and they still somehow let the guy off. More hell should be raised about that than any of this other "My friend's brother's uncle said the cop used the n word" nonsense.

I'm not a cop lover. I'm 99.9% on Eric Garner's family's side. I've seen and read very little that would justify how the NYPD handled that situation. Sufficiently prove your case, and I'll cheer my nuts off for your "team". But I'm not going to crucify a guy because of hearsay.

And yeah, impersonating a police officer...to give the appearance that you have authority that you don't have is illegal. Impersonating a dumbass trying to get attention is not illegal and happens all the time. Again, provide some real evidence that that was being used to manipulate a situation and we can talk. The reports I've seen state that once their cover was blown, they tried to leave, and were interfered with and subsequently attacked.

Justify that behavior for me and I'll concede my argument.
Click to expand...
But yet you still believe the cop's word over the protestors' when you are presented only with 2 sides of their story... Seem you favor cop "lies" over people "lies"

I'm just saying LEO have a long history of entrapment and inciting crimes while undercover

 
Btw, Benjamin Crump is an asshole hack.  He favorites his own tweets.

Re: Tamir Rice: I place the majority of the blame on the cop driving and on Rice.  The cop driving, by pulling up like that, gave the one in the passenger seat very few options.  Rice should have put his hands up, and shouldn't have been playing with an illegal toy gun and waving it around like a madman.

 
Here's a story of wonderful cops for you.. O:)

So someone who was unarmed is being assaulted and beaten while on the ground trying to get up,  what did the cops on the scene do to the assailant?

Did they stop the assault? NO

Did they come to the aid of the victim? NO

Did they arrest the assailant?  NO

Instead what the cops did was tell the assailant to stop because he was on camera ......  Guess who the assailant was ?  A FELLOW COP/OFFICER

I mean cops would never intentionally and randomly just assault people would they? I mean they would never instigate something would they?  They are the good guys after all right asking for the public respect ..... :whistle2: :whistle2:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/buffalo-cop-under-investigation-after-local-station-catches-him-attacking-man-with-his-nightstick/

But guys, I mean guys, guys please lets remind ourselves of the following:

One bad apple does not make everyone bad !!!!

Cops would never turn the other way while a crime is being committed !!!!

Not all police are bad, they would never watch a crime in progress and not stop it !!!

I mean just cause they tried to cover up the crime don't make them bad, its still just one bad apple !!!

So what if other officers ignore a crime that don't mean they are bad

So when me and my friend go out, and he robs people and I don't say a thing, and I also didn't partake either..  I still can say I'm a good guy cause I didn't partake :wave: :wave:

I'm truly going to shit gold and hope people eat that baby up ....

Also I heard some funny shit too:

A drunk driver who killed a family, said he/she didn't wake up one morning and decided to get into a car drunk and run over a innocent family

However a cop also said he didn't wake up one morning and decided to kill someone

But hey guess who's going to prison and who's NOT !!!

I love the gold shit that comes out of police's mouth and the gobble gobble right after

 
Finger_Shocker said:
Here's a story of wonderful cops for you.. O:)

So someone who was unarmed is being assaulted and beaten while on the ground trying to get up, what did the cops on the scene do to the assailant?

Did they stop the assault? NO

Did they come to the aid of the victim? NO

Did they arrest the assailant? NO

Instead what the cops did was tell the assailant to stop because he was on camera ...... Guess who the assailant was ? A FELLOW COP/OFFICER

I mean cops would never intentionally and randomly just assault people would they? I mean they would never instigate something would they? They are the good guys after all right asking for the public respect ..... :whistle2: :whistle2:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/buffalo-cop-under-investigation-after-local-station-catches-him-attacking-man-with-his-nightstick/

But guys, I mean guys, guys please lets remind ourselves of the following:

One bad apple does not make everyone bad !!!!

Cops would never turn the other way while a crime is being committed !!!!

Not all police are bad, they would never watch a crime in progress and not stop it !!!

I mean just cause they tried to cover up the crime don't make them bad, its still just one bad apple !!!

So what if other officers ignore a crime that don't mean they are bad

So when me and my friend go out, and he robs people and I don't say a thing, and I also didn't partake either.. I still can say I'm a good guy cause I didn't partake :wave: :wave:

I'm truly going to shit gold and hope people eat that baby up ....

Also I heard some funny shit too:

A drunk driver who killed a family, said he/she didn't wake up one morning and decided to get into a car drunk and run over a innocent family

However a cop also said he didn't wake up one morning and decided to kill someone

But hey guess who's going to prison and who's NOT !!!

I love the gold shit that comes out of police's mouth and the gobble gobble right after
Click to expand...
The hypocrisy that comes out from you is disgusting. Earlier, you go on a racist rant (after calling others racist). Now, you go on to paint all cops as criminals due to a few bad apples while completely ignoring the good cops. All the while, you say "Ignore the bad apples in this group" or downplay the actions of criminals to paint the police as wrong.

It's complete hypocrisy. You're a hypocrite and a racist. And it's sad.

No one is defending LEOs that have obviously done wrong. At the worst, people ask for the actual facts instead of hearsay.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fearia said:
The hypocrisy that comes out from you is disgusting. Earlier, you go on a racist rant (after calling others racist). Now, you go on to paint all cops as criminals due to a few bad apples while completely ignoring the good cops. All the while, you say "Ignore the bad apples in this group" or downplay the actions of criminals to paint the police as wrong.

It's complete hypocrisy. You're a hypocrite and a racist. And it's sad.

No one is defending LEOs that have obviously done wrong. At the worst, people ask for the actual facts instead of hearsay.
Click to expand...
You mean those "good" cops who instead of arresting the assailant told the assailant to stop because he was being recorded? Those good cops?

I guess they were just using their "discretion" ...... lol

Again when cops do not arrest bad cops and instead warn them of being watched, are those good or bad apples. I mean that's such a brain twister, such a riddle to the mind

Again you missed my little tidbit there:

I specifically mention why someone would believe the police's "lie" over the protestors' "lie"... See what I DID THERE :)

Unless the protestor that made such a claim have a " bad record" how do we know if he/she is not telling the truth?

Are you saying that when there are two honest people, one person is more honest then another... LOL !!!

There is a old saying:

If you are going to point a gun, that means you are prepared/ready to shoot

Sounds like this cop is a great guy :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, here's the thing...police officers are SUPPOSED to be honest and trustworthy. Obviously, that's not always true. But in our society, we grant them a great amount of authority and power because we generally trust that they will use it the right way. And there's SUPPOSED to be a certain credibility that comes with that. Could that be abused? Of course. But if you can't provide hard evidence that that authority is being abused, why would I just believe that it is?...unless I had a general mistrust for law enforcement.

You reference other cases where officers have been guilty of wrongdoing. Are those not entirely separate incidents involving entirely separate individuals? Isn't that the exact same thing as "This one black guy robbed a store one time...so this other black guy must be a criminal too."? You're basically making a case for profiling and being prejudiced.

Citing other instances of officer misconduct have nothing to do with the situation we're discussing. I get that you're posing a question of "Look at what these officers did. Is it so far fetched that others would do something like this?" No. It's not far fetched. But that doesn't mean you have any proof of it actually happening, lol. Is it possible? Yes. Now, prove it.

So, again, I ask for credible, irrefutable proof that contradicts what these officers say happened. If there is none (and seriously...how many people at these protests have camera phones?), and all you've got is your word vs theirs...you're never going to get anywhere. If there are legitimate injustices going on, catch these fuckers in the act and get real with it. Because these random allegations with no actual backing are Dikembe Mutumbo, finger wagging weak shit, man.

anigif_enhanced-buzz-8733-1360605648-3.gif


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oakland LEO have a HISTORY of police misconduct.....  hmmmm I kinda of find it hard to believe a group of people who HAVE A RECORD of misconduct....  call me skeptical ;)

And yes police are a GROUP/ORGANIZATION, just like the KKK are a GROUP/ORGANIZATION, just like the MOB are a GROUP/ORGANIZATION, just like BLOODS/CRIPS/MI15 etc etc GANGS are a GROUP/ORGANIZATION

Please tell me when you already have a huge police presence and helicoptors monitoring the protestors, why would you need to embed undercovers into it ( unless they have ulterior motives, like to stir shit up )

 
Why embed undercover officers? To maybe overhear planned acts of crime, or to maybe be in position to serve and protect without raising tensions by wearing the uniform. After many people complained that the police did nothing to stop looting and rioting, what do you expect from them?
As far as the history of a group, consult the stats as to how many violent crimes are attributed to blacks versus the whole population. It would suck to assume that all black people are violent, right? But the police abuse of force numbers are lower in percentage, so make your case based on that. Police also should have to pass a back ground check and polygraph before getting hired. That earns them my trust until proven otherwise. The people they deal with are an unknown quantity, and thus less reliable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top