If you think you have enough material for some kind of police appreciation thread, you should go do that somewhere where it doesn't diminish the gravity of the problem of systemic police corruption and brutality.
Yes, I understand you're good LE. Yes, I know that there is such a thing as good LE besides you. Yes, I'm even willing to believe that the majority of police are good (or at least not actively assholish).
Well, then we have come along way to finding that common ground.
To me that is and always will be a good thing and worthy of exploring as freethinkers.
Yeah, don't even know what to make of this...did you honestly believe that me or anyone else posting in this thread believed that there are no good cops at all?
Srsly?
'Cause if so, I'm no longer certain your perspective can be trusted.
Fuck the police, for stopping me at 5:00 AM the other morning on my way to work.
Me (holding citizenship papers in hand held out of open window): "Good morning, sir."
Copper: "Did you know your right headlight is out?"
Me (expecting a ticket): "No, I did not. I'll get it fixed as soon as I can."
Copper: "Have a good day." (turns and walks away without even looking at my papers)
Me: Fuck you, asshole You too, sir.
I called him sir because I wasn't sure if he was a city police officer or a county deputy, because I know deputies are sometimes a tad sensitive about that.
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
I would have put it in the Official Happy, Gush, Bubble and Glow About the Police thread, but Failed Japanese University Entrance Exam never started the thread.
Fuck the police, for stopping me at 5:00 AM the other morning on my way to work.
Me (holding citizenship papers in hand held out of open window): "Good morning, sir."
Copper: "Did you know your right headlight is out?"
Me (expecting a ticket): "No, I did not. I'll get it fixed as soon as I can."
Copper: "Have a good day." (turns and walks away without even looking at my papers)
Me: Fuck you, asshole You too, sir.
I called him sir because I wasn't sure if he was a city police officer or a county deputy, because I know deputies are sometimes a tad sensitive about that.
I would have put it in the Official Happy, Gush, Bubble and Glow About the Police thread, but Failed Japanese University Entrance Exam never started the thread.
--J.D.
You still haven't found it yet?
Yeah, even with the FF search feature that one thread is difficult to cull out from the alternatives, I admit.
Well, I have a three day weekend coming up...maybe I'll make you my special needs project.
This post has made my day, by the way, hopefully everything will work out for you with insurance and everything now that the other driver was located and identified.
__________________
Live for today and not tomorrow
Live for the Now and whats here
Stop living for what maybe or what may never come
Live for the day already here
I would have put it in the Official Happy, Gush, Bubble and Glow About the Police thread, but Failed Japanese University Entrance Exam never started the thread.
--J.D.
He at least shot the guy's next door neighbor's dog and sodomized the corpse first, though, right? As has been established, I believe that all cops are, without exception, spectacularly incompetent and irrationally violent, so I'm having problems believing your story of an officer successfully managing to do the job he is paid to do without murdering an innocent in the process.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
Wait, is Ronin saying that if you say one extreme is bad without saying equally often in the same venue that the other extreme is equally bad, then you're basically saying that the other extreme is totally awesome?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
If you don't believe that [civilian-murdering insurgents] are justified and noble defenders of freedom and human rights...I'd sure like to see it expressed more often.
If not, then it is more than reasonable for me to gather that all of the offense at coalition military action without equally expressed offense on the part of people who kidnap and murder aid workers must mean that the insurgency is justified in committing such acts.
Wait, is Ronin saying that if you say one extreme is bad without saying equally often in the same venue that the other extreme is equally bad, then you're basically saying that the other extreme is totally awesome?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
If you don't believe that [civilian-murdering insurgents] are justified and noble defenders of freedom and human rights...I'd sure like to see it expressed more often.
If not, then it is more than reasonable for me to gather that all of the offense at coalition military action without equally expressed offense on the part of people who kidnap and murder aid workers must mean that the insurgency is justified in committing such acts.
So Ronin, basically, in any post in which one condemns violent or improper actions of the police (or apparently military), you want us to include a disclaimer that we do not extrapolate and ascribe those actions or attitudes onto all law enforcement or military personnel? Or you want us to balance out all criticisms with equal amounts of praise or otherwise indicate that we are not generalizing from the specific to the whole?
Your praise for those disclaimers in this thread, and this quote from a previous discussion, leads me to believe that is exactly what you expect and/or require for you to not assume we make no distinctions between good cops and bad cops.
Like if I link to a story about a cop who saved a cat from a tree (without shooting it out of said tree), do I also need to post a disclaimer that some other cops, maybe even ones known to this good cop may have done bad things?
I just wanna be sure here, wouldn't wanna offend Ronin anymore than we already have.
I'll check in later, but I think I may have praised some movies in the "Seen any good movies" thread without actually including a disclaimer that some movies are really shitty.
He at least shot the guy's next door neighbor's dog and sodomized the corpse first, though, right? As has been established, I believe that all cops are, without exception, spectacularly incompetent and irrationally violent, so I'm having problems believing your story of an officer successfully managing to do the job he is paid to do without murdering an innocent in the process.
You forgot to mention that you speak for every single member of this forum*, as you are quoting directly from the General ConsensusTM of the .
* Of which Ronin is a member, so I haven't really figured out how that works.
__________________
"Her eyes in certain light were violet, and all her teeth were even. That's a rare, fair feature: even teeth. She smiled to excess, but she chewed with real distinction." - Eleanor of Aquitaine
Look Ronin, I can vouch for your being a good person. I think you can vouch for me being a good person. That's not at issue here.
I agree that that isn’t the issue.
I was actually responding to a minor tangent in the course of a conversation with another person.
The issue obviously isn’t about any of our personal moral qualities, it is about whether or not myopia is a practice of social conservatives in one direction and social liberals in another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
In my experience problems can't even begin to be solved unless they are identified, analyzed, and/or spotlighted if needed. A Night Out event does not solve the problem, unfortunately.
The LE initiated “night out” efforts of community involvement was only one reference, I also included a link to “internal affairs”, which is an invaluable resource you may want to visit (revisit?) whenever you get a chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
For too long, bad policing has been handwaved away as a series of isolated incidents perpetrated by a handful of rogues. With media coverage, victims being brave enough to come forward, and discussions like these, the problem is being spotlighted. And it appears to be systemic. And it appears that higher ups are covering shit up.
As long as any organization draws recruits from the human family there will be dismal failures.
But, that is not the issue either. As an aside, historically, the evolution of law enforcement (among other institutions and social practices) began to improve with the Warren court and is always in need of proactive efforts, monitoring and protecting.
Again, the only issue I introduced in this thread continues to be whether or not there is a myopic fixation on “bad police behavior” by this in-group as much as there is a myopic fixation on “good police behavior” by the out-group as articulated in your comment referring to the social conservative comments that raised your ire:
“Once again, commentors are all “The police neveh, eveh abuse law abiding citizens!"
Which, if one fondly harkens back, I commented that we (myself included) were participating in “the reverse” here in our thread…which apparently touched quite a few raw nerves and I have since been tasked to explain myself before the inquisitional board (aka everyone here).
To support my theory, an internal search for threads involving “police” here at FF will show that the vast majority of the comments do not consider efforts of the entire industry of successful regulation, civil litigation, judicial deliberation and in-house investigation that has been created to watch (and convict) the watchmen.
The posts here at FF simply favor and focus instead on precisely the counterpoint of the social conservative love-fest for all things popo no matter how egregious.
Since you found it worth noting and commenting upon that particular onerous trait of social conservatives, I thought it would be worth noting the practice here amongst the social liberals.
The rest of the comments directed at my observation have turned to the (otherwise rejected and often criticized as faulty debate tactics) practice of asserting non-sequiturs, ad hominems and other flawed projections of my actual intent to battle the thought-crime of even suggesting such a comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I think this is analogous with the priest molestation issue. It was similarly handwaved away as a few isolated incidents and rogue priests. Then it became apparent it was systemic. Then it became apparent that the size and scope of the problem was being covered up.
Does talking about the good the RCC does, and relaying stories about good priests solve the problem? No. What can lead to positive changes is no longer allowing heinous shit to be swept under the carpet.
An interesting analogy and one that highlights an important point:
At no time have I ever “handwaved” any of these crimes away as a few isolated incidents or attempted to mitigate the evil contained in them.
If anyone is interested in the facts, my first post actually highlights some rather significant local cases where police investigations from within led to felony convictions.
Show me a priest that does that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The spotlight needs to remain on until there is nothing to see here and we can all move along now.
I agree wholeheartedly and I have the spotlight that does it, many do, self-righteous and beloved darlings that we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I read it that the wet t-shirt was completely unrelated to the LE involvement. Seems like the cop was just there. If it was called in, since when do police HAVE to file a full report with name etc. when there is no evidence of a crime committed? She was arrested for not giving her name fast enough. She didn't have to give her name at all.
Yeah, your explanation of some need to complete the report sounds like apologetics to me. What's wrong with "Responded to a call reporting indecent exposure, no evidence of such at scene"
I posted one probability, LadyShea, in response to your queries…hardly, an apologetic.
In fact, if it were an apologetic or any sort of excuse for the officer’s poor decisions and behavior it would be a damn strange one.
Here is the entirety of what I stated regarding the incident:
“Because there was a complaint and the police were obligated to respond.
The rest went downhill from there, but I can understand the call and response issues (see previous post regarding "database" comment).
Given the articulation presented, she should not have ever been arrested and has a solid civil case against the department in this instance."
Seen in this totality, a reasoned observer should note that my post was one explanation and not in any way a justification of the officer’s actions.
My view is that quite a few of the folks here seem to apply their own internal projections upon many of my posts, reframe them to fit their own presumptions…and then ignite the assorted straw men over some rather delicious S’mores (via this odd new feature called “thanks” that really is a curiosity to me).
Anyway, hopefully y’all really will take a closer look at my first post in this thread, the internal affairs link (and the cases successfully investigated and prosecuted there) and understand that I am not demanding or asking for any sort of fair entitlement for equal time regarding the topic of shining that light from within, just illuminating the notion that it isn’t something that social liberals seem in any way interested in ever examining or commenting about on their own…”nevah, evah”.
Wait, is Ronin saying that if you say one extreme is bad without saying equally often in the same venue that the other extreme is equally bad, then you're basically saying that the other extreme is totally awesome?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
If you don't believe that [civilian-murdering insurgents] are justified and noble defenders of freedom and human rights...I'd sure like to see it expressed more often.
If not, then it is more than reasonable for me to gather that all of the offense at coalition military action without equally expressed offense on the part of people who kidnap and murder aid workers must mean that the insurgency is justified in committing such acts.
I was on the jury once in a trial where a union official was being charged with assault on a police officer during a picket on a local grocery store. The guy being charged was pretty old, in a wheelchair and stuff, and the prosecution provided, as evidence, a video that showed the beginning of some verbal altercation, then a cop grabbing the guy's arm, and then the video jumped unceremoniously to footage of some cops throwing the old guy against a patrol car. The guy said something like HEY! and raised his arm to shield himself, which I think was supposed to be the 'assault on a police officer' part. They said the middle portion of the video had been misplaced by some act of God or equipment malfunction or something like that. OOPS!
During the whole trial, there were a couple of cops sitting there giving us (the jury!) the hard eye, and one cop even got up and just flat out lied under oath about what happened in the small portion of the video we saw.
When we went in to deliberate, we took a vote and were unanimous, then we took another vote which revealed that we were also unanimous about there being no possibility of us changing our mind. But there were donuts, so we stayed in there for a little while and also took a vote for lulz in which it was revealed that several (most?) of us had gone in there fully prepared to be the lone holdout if everyone else had voted to convict the guy.
And I'll bet we all made extra super sure to obey every traffic law, no matter how counterproductive, on our way home that day.