Good Cop/Bad Cop



  • Ok, lets have it here.

    Prior to my employment I've never had a negative run in with law enforcement. Maybe I make different life choices or I'm lucky. Sample size of one.

    Most of police want to serve their community, I sure as hell do. I maintain the problem is a few bad apples.

    I also pose the question: Does this country have a police brutality problem?

    Lets hear stories.

    RLTW
    (This space for rent)

    0


  • @ragnarnar I’m no angle but I’m also no criminal. Personally I’ve never been a “victim” of police brutality but I have been a victim of many many accounts of police abusing their authority. I’ve had police repeatedly slam the doors of my truck parked outside my apartment because they assumed I was under age while sitting on my front porch with a beer before ever even checking my ID. I had them take rifles from my truck and screw with the turrets laughing as they did it. I’ve been arrested for simply asking why I was stopped, and had my truck destroyed while it was searched and all my personal belongings thrown out in the ditch. I could keep going on and on but I think my points been made. Just to clarify before anyone jumps to conclusions about me, I’ve never been into drugs of any kind or a big partier/drinker, and am usally pretty mild mannered until I’m treated with deliberate disrespect. With all that said I believe there are good cops and bad, the bad give the good a bad reputation. There are very very few that do not in some way big or small abuse their authority.



  • Is the "a few bad apples" approach any consolation to innocent people that have been targeted by police?

    @bull81 said:

    There are very very few that do not in some way big or small abuse their authority.

    VERY few indeed. ... and that's not even mentioning the ridiculous number of totally out of control prosecutors.



  • End Qualified Immunity and the taxpayers having to pay off on Civil Suits and a lot of the problem goes away.
    End Civil Asset Forfeiture until after a Jury reaches a guilty verdict.

    Many rural areas could get by with a largely volunteer Sheriff Department much like Fire Fighting.

    Most police work is Cleanup on Isle 6 type of after the fact anyhow.



  • Part of the training that LEOs (that acronym can reference law enforcement officers, or, as I call them, legally entitled to oppress) receive is in how to lie and get away with it.

    These “legal” lies can include telling a suspect that police have evidence they don’t have, or have obtained confessions they have not obtained, or even posing as a prisoner in a jail cell who is simply “shooting the breeze” with a fellow prisoner with the express purpose of obtaining evidence of a crime.

    https://personalliberty.com/cops-are-trained-liars-and-courts-have-sanctioned-the-practice/

    99% of the Lawyers make the rest look bad.

    2


  • Peel's Principles of Policing have been lost on many departments.
    I will post them when I'm home.
    Shopping for 44 and 9mm right now.
    Future Son-in-law has a long ported barrel 44 Magnum his grandfather left to him.

    Guess I'll have to get dies for it too.



  • Hey Hypo still waiting on Peel's Principles.

    As far as my experience with LE. About 17 years ago I had a red corvette and I got a speeding ticket for 72 in a 55 and I literally had the cruise set on 55. I was a little steamed about that but got over it.

    Just recently I was heading over to my local gun shop and I was looking at the GPS on my phone while driving and ran a yellow/red light. Got pulled over. I provided both by DL and my carry to the officer. He asked me if I was carrying and I said of course. He called in another unit and asked me to keep my hands where he could see them. I put them on the door window sill. He said that wasn't necessary and the steering wheel would be just fine. He called another unit in to check the validity of the Carry Lic.. Meanwhile were talked about where what I shoot and what kind of db reduction I was expecting from the suppressor I was getting. Everything checked out fine and at the end the cop asked, "you know why I stopped you don't you?" I said yes it was my fault and that I got turned around and I was looking at my GPS. I had no intention of running the light. He let me go with a, "don't do it again."

    I treat cops with respect and I've been treated well in return, in general. I've never been in a high profile situation where DA's and defense attorneys were involved.

    I recently heard about an insurance policy from a handgun shooting instructor that covers legal costs in the event you shoot someone in self defense. He said that most policies require that you pa\pay the company back for legal expenses they cover if you are found guilty of a reduced crime somehow but there was a company out there that didn't require it. He it wasn't through NRA and said it cost about $12-15/mo. Might need to track that company down. It might help if I run into that Bad Apple.

    Regardless With Cops, I treat them the way I'd like to be treated if I were holding the badge, bracelets and a gun and had a tough job to do..... With Respect...



  • https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-consent/definition-of-policing-by-consent

    The principles which were set out in the ‘General Instructions’ that were issued to every new police officer from 1829 were:

    To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
    To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
    To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
    To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
    To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
    To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
    To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
    To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
    To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.



  • If modern cops followed that list AT ALL, there would literally be no one except the very worst of society that disliked cops. Instead cops demand you obey every single thing they say, no matter how grievous the damage to your rights are, and if you don't immediately comply like a mindless drone, they escalate force as far as they possibly can without losing their jobs. That's why it's so important to have a camera on them at ALL TIMES in any situation you're involved in, and especially those where cops are present. Dash cams and stealth body cams, with audio. Technology is GREAT! :)

    People of Peel's day also didn't count on the fact that there would be so many laws written that every human being will break an average of 8 of them per day.





  • said:

    I want to see the video.

    The video is out. I've seen it... just don't recall where.

    Disgusting to watch... but completely unsurprising.



  • http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/11/robert-farago/chicago-cop-marco-proano-faces-8-years-in-jail-for-shooting-16-rounds-into-stolen-car/

    Right around 1:50 in the video you can see him start shooting. Textbook brainless inner city thug handgun technique is demonstrated.



  • @orkan If he had killed one of the kids, under Federal Law, he could have gotten the Death Penalty.

    https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law

    Don't know the last time that ever occurred.

    State Court would have only been a Civil Case most likely.



  • http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/12/robert-farago/arapahoe-county-colorado-cops-shoot-suspects-car-50-times-miss/

    “A CBS4 Investigation has learned Arapahoe County Deputies and Colorado State Troopers poured more than 50 shots into a stationary car in March believing the driver was armed. It now turns out she was only armed with either a dustbuster or tire jack but emerged unscathed. However at least one deputy inadvertently shot up a marked state patrol unit during the unusual standoff.” And here’s how this ballistic bufoonery began . . .

    Johnson subsequently called police and in slurred tones, said that she was armed with an Ak-47 and intended to kill as many police as possible. “I want to kill cops,” said Johnson on the taped call. “I’m gonna kill all the cops I can. I have a gun, have a machete, have an AK-47.”

    “Those deputies and troopers showed a lot of restraint in not causing a further confrontation,” said [Arapahoe County Sheriff Dave] Walcher.

    In about 30 minutes, from approximately 75 feet away, deputies and troopers fired 55 rounds at Johnson’s car from AR-15 rifles, .40 caliber pistols, and a shotgun. Not a single round hit her.

    Photos of the crime scene obtained by CBS4 also show that in the bursts of gunfire, an Arapahoe County deputy accidentally shot up a state patrol cruiser. Reports suggest the patrol vehicle was struck 28 times. The deputy was standing immediately behind the car but was apparently unaware that many of his shots intended for Johnson were actually hitting the patrol car.



  • Bore axis offset must not have crossed his mind.



  • @rhyno Things like this are proof positive that police are some of the LEAST competent gun owners on the planet. The amount of shots fired and the number of hits in a typical police shooting is demonstration of that fact. Yet, they will pull that pistol out of the holster and point it at people constantly. Sad lack of training and discipline.

    @rhyno said:

    “Those deputies and troopers showed a lot of restraint in not causing a further confrontation,”

    Restraint? I suppose only firing 55rnds instead of 350 is restraint?

    Watch the video. The cops said she shot first.
    "unfortunately some things may, go out... that aren't... specifically accurate." Oh, you mean some cops will lie through their teeth whenever it suits them?

    This chic was clearly nuts or on drugs or both... so it wouldn't have hurt my feelings no matter the outcome. ... but just another example of how situations get escalated by police, and then attempt to cover it up. This chic will sue them, and she'll win.



  • Yea that quote was a complete head scratcher, baffling.



  • I would think that after 5 minutes and no movement or sound from the vehicle that one of them would have gone and looked into the car.



  • Vomit. needs to be a Federal 18 USC 242 death penalty case.
    Video was NOT admitted to the trial.
    Not guilty verdict of 2nd degree Murder.
    Over charged by DA.
    Judge not allowing the video is insanity.
    If you are not going to admit video, why even have it?
    If clear video evidence is not admitted, how can there be Justice?

    “When injustice becomes law, Resistance becomes duty”-Thomas Jefferson



  • @hypo Absolutely disgusting.

    NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE can comprehend and follow precise motor function instruction when they are under duress. NO ONE! So when a person in "authority" is screaming at you at the top of their lungs when people are pointing guns at you, and you're shitting your pants in fear... you simply are not going to have the ability to control every motion of your body.

    This is a PROVEN physiological fucking fact. Couple that with the fact that people whom wear baggy clothes and are a bit chubby are CONSTANTLY as a matter of habit, reaching and pulling up their pants... and yes, they fucking executed that guy. Premeditated. "If you put your hands down, we're going to shoot you." Then they tell him to crawl toward them, which he MUST PUT HIS FUCKING HANDS DOWN TO DO. They executed him. Guy was doing everything in his power to comply. Quivering voice obviously indicative he's fucking paralyzed with fear.

    Instead of being calm, collected, and negotiating their way through the situation... the cop just screamed in his face to obey or you'll be shot. Cops typically escalate every single situation they are in, and they do it JUST LIKE SHOWN IN THAT VIDEO. They always talk about safety and how cops safety is so important. Well if they want it to be safe, maybe they should stop making EVERY situation they are in UNSAFE by saying and doing ALL the things that cause situations to spin out of control.

    Anyone with half a brain can tell what went on in that video. They might not be guilty in court, but those guys are going to burn.

    Remember folks, they can do the same thing to ANY OF US, anytime they want. Someone can call and claim ANYTHING they want, and the police will automatically side with that anonymous caller and come and ruin your fucking life. They will show up at your place in full swat deployment and expect you to mentally be on the same page as them, even though you were just sitting down eating a steak and watching TV a few seconds before they got there... and if you can't immediately get on the same page, they'll fucking kill you at worst or imprison you at best, and NOTHING will happen to them when you later prove they were wrong and someone lied.



  • Textbook example of what the Second Amendment was to be the counterbalance to.

    These guys have no fear of the citizens.



  • https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/a-police-killing-without-a-hint-of-racism/546983/

    They’d already begun drinking when one of the guests asked about an unmarked case in the corner. Was it musical instrument? No, a pellet gun. He used it at work. His job was to go hunt down birds that had flown into businesses including Walmart. Soon he was standing by his room’s window showing off his pellet gun to the man. Down below, two motel guests in the La Quinta Inn and Suites hot tub looked up and saw a man with a gun near a fifth-floor window. Someone called 911.

    Think about how easy this kind of mindset makes it for cops to kill ANY gun owner.

    The way police treat gun owners in situations like this borders insanity. If a cop hears "gun" it seems they automatically decide they are going to show up with hostile intent. They aren't "investigating" to learn the truth. Instead, they decide ahead of time that there is a threat, and they're going to shoot them if they decide to.


Log in to reply