NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems to me liberals always get up in arms when police use "excessive force" or "misuse their power." However there is never outrage when some piece of shit crackhead kills a cop in cold blood. But they are 1st to scream "racism" or "police brutality" when a cop roughs up some black guy who was trying to run from them. Or when they complained about how they "shot someone too much". That someone had killed two cops and was a waving gun, they didnt shoot enough imo. So why is it that when an innocent, hardworking cop, trying to do the right thing get killed in the line of duty the media and liberals brush it off as nothing. But when they try to control someone resisting arrest or use force against someone threatening their life, there are riots in the streets?

Seems to me liberals always get up in arms when police use "excessive force" or "misuse their power." However there is never outrage when some piece of shit crackhead kills a cop in cold blood.

I would suggest it's generally a good thing to hold police to a higher standard than crackheads.

That's just me however.

an innocent, hardworking cop, trying to do the right thing

haha

I would suggest it's generally a good thing to hold police to a higher standard than crackheads.

That's just me however.

Well, that was fast.

I would suggest it's generally a good thing to hold police to a higher standard than crackheads.

That's just me however.

Yea, but shouldn't people get upset over the crackhead killing a cop than vice versa? Personally if I had to depend my life on a cop, I want the cop to shoot the guy!

*snip*

Amen.

haha

I don't see how thats funny...

I would suggest it's generally a good thing to hold police to a higher standard than crackheads.

That's just me however.

Yeah, but it's often unrealistic to expect them to live up to a higher standard.

Seems to me liberals always get up in arms when police use "excessive force" or "misuse their power." However there is never outrage when some piece of shit crackhead kills a cop in cold blood. But they are 1st to scream "racism" or "police brutality" when a cop roughs up some black guy who was trying to run from them. Or when they complained about how they "shot someone too much". That someone had killed two cops and was a waving gun, they didnt shoot enough imo. So why is it that when an innocent, hardworking cop, trying to do the right thing get killed in the line of duty the media and liberals brush it off as nothing. But when they try to control someone resisting arrest or use force against someone threatening their life, there are riots in the streets?

What do you expect? Many liberals have their hearts bleed for the poor criminals who are possibly abused, police don't don't exactly have that risk. After all the police are the enemy, putting in prison people who have sad lives so don't deserve to be punished for their crimes. Or people see a few crooked cops and then assume they are ALL crooked! Don't trust the police! The crackhead has had more rights then the cop lately. Just the way it is.

However don't think all liberals are such fools.

haha

Hey, I know plenty of hard working honest cops. Just because there's a few bad ones doesn't mean they're all bad. Also, hey if the suspect didn't want to have his head slammed into the pavement, then he shouldn't have resisted arrest!

Seems to me liberals always get up in arms when police use "excessive force" or "misuse their power." However there is never outrage when some piece of shit crackhead kills a cop in cold blood. But they are 1st to scream "racism" or "police brutality" when a cop roughs up some black guy who was trying to run from them. Or when they complained about how they "shot someone too much". That someone had killed two cops and was a waving gun, they didnt shoot enough imo. So why is it that when an innocent, hardworking cop, trying to do the right thing get killed in the line of duty the media and liberals brush it off as nothing. But when they try to control someone resisting arrest or use force against someone threatening their life, there are riots in the streets?

Liberals get upset when nothing is being done about a bad situation. When someone kills a cop, the cops are all over it. When cops kill innocent people, all to often (not always mind you just more than some of us are comfortable with) cops and conservative politicians reflexivly rally behind the cop, even going to the point of supressing evidence and smearing the victim to make sure that the cop faces no consequences, whether he deserves them or not.

Really, when does it ever happen that a cop gets shot and the police dept. and mayor go on TV and say "yeah, it sucks that he got shot, but he was a real hothead, and had major discipline problems. He probably had it coming."

Yea, but shouldn't people get upset over the crackhead killing a cop than vice versa? Personally if I had to depend my life on a cop, I want the cop to shoot the guy!

If the police have a reason to believe their lives to be in danger I have no issue with them using force to prevent it.

That being said, a crackhead, or anyone else for that matter, is a civilian. As a civilian, I am not particularly shocked, nor extraordinary troubled when a criminal does something criminal. A policeman dead in the line of duty is tragic, arrest his murderer and see to it he gets punished for his actions.

That's what you do to civilians, you punish them for their actions.

Police on the other hand are not civilians. They are put in place for the public trust and act as agents of the state. When a criminal shoots someone, the criminal shoots someone, and it is the criminal's fault, and the criminal who pays.

When a police officer commits an abuse of his/her power, it is the state that bears that burden. When the police beat a suspect, it is not a civilian doing so, it is an agent of the government.

I hold the civilian to the standard I hold any civilian. Commit a crime and do your time. The police on the other hand are agents of the state, and as such when they abuse their power, they harm not just those directly affected, but harm the public trust as well, and act, as an agent of the state, against the people.

Thus I find a police officer illegally assaulting a civilian far more offensive than a civilian assaulting a police officer.

If the police have a reason to believe their lives to be in danger I have no issue with them using force to prevent it.

That being said, a crackhead, or anyone else for that matter, is a civilian. As a civilian, I am not particularly shocked, nor extraordinary troubled when a criminal does something criminal. A policeman dead in the line of duty is tragic, arrest his murderer and see to it he gets punished for his actions.

That's what you do to civilians, you punish them for their actions.

Police on the other hand are not civilians. They are put in place for the public trust and act as agents of the state. When a criminal shoots someone, the criminal shoots someone, and it is the criminal's fault, and the criminal who pays.

When a police officer commits an abuse of his/her power, it is the state that bears that burden. When the police beat a suspect, it is not a civilian doing so, it is an agent of the government.

I hold the civilian to the standard I hold any civilian. Commit a crime and do your time. The police on the other hand are agents of the state, and as such when they abuse their power, they harm not just those directly affected, but harm the public trust as well, and act, as an agent of the state, against the people.

Thus I find a police officer illegally assaulting a civilian far more offensive than a civilian assaulting a police officer.
excellent post

So why is it that when an innocent, hardworking cop, trying to do the right thing get killed in the line of duty the media and liberals brush it off as nothing. But when they try to control someone resisting arrest or use force against someone threatening their life, there are riots in the streets?

...weren't you the person who was saying yesterday that six-year-old girls deserve to be shot in the head? Because, if so, I'm thinking you don't have a lot of room to talk about those mean ol' liberals.

Liberals get upset when nothing is being done about a bad situation. When someone kills a cop, the cops are all over it. When cops kill innocent people, all to often (not always mind you just more than some of us are comfortable with) cops and conservative politicians reflexivly rally behind the cop, even going to the point of supressing evidence and smearing the victim to make sure that the cop faces no consequences, whether he deserves them or not.

Really, when does it ever happen that a cop gets shot and the police dept. and mayor go on TV and say "yeah, it sucks that he got shot, but he was a real hothead, and had major discipline problems. He probably had it coming."

Actually that's not always true. Back in July a guy who was on a cell phone tower (probably working on it) was shot by a cop. Ever since then several local Conservative talk radio host (1110 WBT) have been talking about how a guy was innocent and that the cop has killed an innocent person. The Charlotte/Meck police department decide to do it's own invesigation into the case, even that didn't appease the conservative talk show host. They wanted someone outside the Charlotte/Meck police department to look into the shooting. So, your scenerio doesn't always happen.

If the police have a reason to believe their lives to be in danger I have no issue with them using force to prevent it.

That being said, a crackhead, or anyone else for that matter, is a civilian. As a civilian, I am not particularly shocked, nor extraordinary troubled when a criminal does something criminal. A policeman dead in the line of duty is tragic, arrest his murderer and see to it he gets punished for his actions.

That's what you do to civilians, you punish them for their actions.

Police on the other hand are not civilians. They are put in place for the public trust and act as agents of the state. When a criminal shoots someone, the criminal shoots someone, and it is the criminal's fault, and the criminal who pays.

When a police officer commits an abuse of his/her power, it is the state that bears that burden. When the police beat a suspect, it is not a civilian doing so, it is an agent of the government.

I hold the civilian to the standard I hold any civilian. Commit a crime and do your time. The police on the other hand are agents of the state, and as such when they abuse their power, they harm not just those directly affected, but harm the public trust as well, and act, as an agent of the state, against the people.

Thus I find a police officer illegally assaulting a civilian far more offensive than a civilian assaulting a police officer.

All that is absolutely true. But some people seem to think that even if a suspect points a gun at an officer that the officer should do something other then kill the idiot. What exactly do people have against that?

Seems to me liberals always get up in arms when police use "excessive force" or "misuse their power." However there is never outrage when some piece of shit crackhead kills a cop in cold blood. But they are 1st to scream "racism" or "police brutality" when a cop roughs up some black guy who was trying to run from them. Or when they complained about how they "shot someone too much". That someone had killed two cops and was a waving gun, they didnt shoot enough imo. So why is it that when an innocent, hardworking cop, trying to do the right thing get killed in the line of duty the media and liberals brush it off as nothing. But when they try to control someone resisting arrest or use force against someone threatening their life, there are riots in the streets?

Talk about crackhead, wtF are you blabbering about?

Seems to me the "liberal media" gets pretty teary eyed every time a cop gets shot.

When was the last time there were riots in the streets because the police tried to control someone resisting arrest? Were the riots because the police tried to control someone resisting arrest, or because they beat someone once he was under control? You are clearly being dishonest.

Shame on you

If the police have a reason to believe their lives to be in danger I have no issue with them using force to prevent it.

That being said, a crackhead, or anyone else for that matter, is a civilian. As a civilian, I am not particularly shocked, nor extraordinary troubled when a criminal does something criminal. A policeman dead in the line of duty is tragic, arrest his murderer and see to it he gets punished for his actions.

That's what you do to civilians, you punish them for their actions.

Police on the other hand are not civilians. They are put in place for the public trust and act as agents of the state. When a criminal shoots someone, the criminal shoots someone, and it is the criminal's fault, and the criminal who pays.

When a police officer commits an abuse of his/her power, it is the state that bears that burden. When the police beat a suspect, it is not a civilian doing so, it is an agent of the government.

I hold the civilian to the standard I hold any civilian. Commit a crime and do your time. The police on the other hand are agents of the state, and as such when they abuse their power, they harm not just those directly affected, but harm the public trust as well, and act, as an agent of the state, against the people.

Thus I find a police officer illegally assaulting a civilian far more offensive than a civilian assaulting a police officer.

hear, hear

Yeah, but it's often unrealistic to expect them to live up to a higher standard.

We can hope ...

All that is absolutely true. But some people seem to think that even if a suspect points a gun at an officer that the officer should do something other then kill the idiot. What exactly do people have against that?

If a guy points a gun at me, I'm going to shoot. I don't care if he doesn't have any intent to use it, as soon as I see that gun headed my way, I will shoot because to me that is a hostile situation. I want the cops that my taxes pay to protect me to act in the same way!

Talk about crackhead, wtF are you blabbering about?

Seems to me the "liberal media" gets pretty teary eyed every time a cop gets shot.

When was the last time there were riots in the streets because the police tried to control someone resisting arrest? Were the riots because the police tried to control someone resisting arrest, or because they beat someone once he was under control? You are clearly being dishonest.

Shame on you

have you heard of what happen after that whole rodney king bullshit?

We can hope ...

No we can't, cops are humans and thus are faliable, to try to hold them up to a higher standards than humans is just silly. Cops make mistakes, because they're humans and humans are falliable. Now I don't mean don't punish the cop if he abused his power, just don't expect him to be better than your average human being.

If the police have a reason to believe their lives to be in danger I have no issue with them using force to prevent it.

That being said, a crackhead, or anyone else for that matter, is a civilian. As a civilian, I am not particularly shocked, nor extraordinary troubled when a criminal does something criminal. A policeman dead in the line of duty is tragic, arrest his murderer and see to it he gets punished for his actions.

That's what you do to civilians, you punish them for their actions.

Police on the other hand are not civilians. They are put in place for the public trust and act as agents of the state. When a criminal shoots someone, the criminal shoots someone, and it is the criminal's fault, and the criminal who pays.

When a police officer commits an abuse of his/her power, it is the state that bears that burden. When the police beat a suspect, it is not a civilian doing so, it is an agent of the government.

I hold the civilian to the standard I hold any civilian. Commit a crime and do your time. The police on the other hand are agents of the state, and as such when they abuse their power, they harm not just those directly affected, but harm the public trust as well, and act, as an agent of the state, against the people.

Thus I find a police officer illegally assaulting a civilian far more offensive than a civilian assaulting a police officer.
Agread wholeheartedly

have you heard of what happen after that whole rodney king bullshit?

read the post before you respond to it

"When was the last time there were riots in the streets because the police tried to control someone resisting arrest? Were the riots because the police tried to control someone resisting arrest, or because they beat someone once he was under control? You are clearly being dishonest.

Shame on you"

read the post before you respond to it

those cops actions were justified. If they weren't, they would have gone to prison. They were good cops, and good men. The riots were completely out of line.

Police on the other hand are not civilians. They are...agents of the state.

i'm always surprised by how hard of a time certain people have in understanding that sort of idea.

No we can't, cops are humans and thus are faliable, to try to hold them up to a higher standards than humans is just silly. Cops make mistakes, because they're humans and humans are falliable. Now I don't mean don't punish the cop if he abused his power, just don't expect him to be better than your average human being.

The job of the police is to act as agents of the state given power as part of the public trust. Their function is to serve and protect. And as agents of the state, working in the public trust, damned right I expect them to be better than your average human being.

They are agents of the state. And if they can't be better than your average human being, then they shouldn't be cops.

those cops actions were justified. If they weren't, they would have gone to prison. They were good cops, and good men. The riots were completely out of line.

How many other times have there been riots (by liberals, your thread is about liberals) because the police 'tried to control someone resisting arrest' as you imply is the general case.

Were the LA rioters angry that the police had subdued someone trying to resist arrest, or angry that white people had been acquitted for beating up a black guy?

enough of your dirty lying-by-implication, shame on you

No we can't, cops are humans and thus are faliable, to try to hold them up to a higher standards than humans is just silly. Cops make mistakes, because they're humans and humans are falliable. Now I don't mean don't punish the cop if he abused his power, just don't expect him to be better than your average human being.

except that cops aren't your average human being. they are the armed enforcers of the state. the position they hold gives them vastly more power than you or i have access to. to not hold those with such power to higher standards is to invite tyranny.

The job of the police is to act as agents of the state given power as part of the public trust. Their function is to serve and protect. And as agents of the state, working in the public trust, damned right I expect them to be better than your average human being.

They are agents of the state. And if they can't be better than your average human being, then they shouldn't be cops.

They're humans, not machines. For them to be better than humans is not possibe. If you want something that is better than humans, then build a robocop.

except that cops aren't your average human being. they are the armed enforcers of the state. the position they hold gives them vastly more power than you or i have access to. to not hold those with such power to higher standards is to invite tyranny.

They are humans, not machines, to expect them to be better than humans is impossible. Might as well ask them to split the red sea.

those cops actions were justified. If they weren't, they would have gone to prison. They were good cops, and good men. The riots were completely out of line.

Wait a minute, are you saying that the cops who beat Rodney King had every right do do what they did? You are taking cops being generally in the right to "all cops are always right" which is wrong. Those officers should have gone to prison but an all white jury who are blindly trusting of police let them go. The only complaint I have of the L.A. riots is that the rioters messed up their own neighborhoods instead of going to mess up a white neighborhood.

They're humans, not machines. For them to be better than humans is not possibe.

then perhaps it would be better to not invest so much power into their hands.

if men were angels, then giving some power over others would be unobjectionable.

They're humans, not machines. For them to be better than humans is not possibe. If you want something that is better than humans, then build a robocop.

That is, however, not what you said. You said:

just don't expect him to be better than your average human being.

I recognize police are human. I can still expect them to be better than average. I hold those who are given the public trust to the HIGHEST standard possible. Simply average is blatantly insufficient.

We don't say anything much when a crackhead kills a cop because we don't control the crackheads, we don't give them authority. We do control the cops, and hold them to certain standards. We invest a lot of power in the police, and that power requires oversight. So unless your suggesting that cops should be able to beat the crap out of or kill one guy just because they feel like it for every time one of them gets beat up or killed in the line of duty, your argument doesn't have any grounds. And hell, if you're suggesting that, you're an idiot.

We don't assume every cop is bad, but we don't let them just go around beating up or shooting whoever they want with no oversight. Now if you want to debate exactly what is or is not excessive force, go ahead.

The only complaint I have of the L.A. riots is that the rioters messed up their own neighborhoods instead of going to mess up a white neighborhood.

Why? That would have been stupid and pointless.

I believe the more legitimate question that should be asked is; why do some people immediately suspect the police of wrongdoing before having a remotely complete picture of the situation? What sort of intrinsic bias is required to come to that conclusion? Is the reputation that the police have with these individuals earned through long term visibility of their behavior, or because of one or more personal encounters with the police, in which the person was a suspect, or was not a suspect and handled roughly or improperly? If this is the case, is this systemic, or is it isolated?

These are questions that we should be asking on this matter, not some broad, general categoy about "Liberals and the Police".

Wait a minute, are you saying that the cops who beat Rodney King had every right do do what they did? You are taking cops being generally in the right to "all cops are always right" which is wrong. Those officers should have gone to prison but an all white jury who are blindly trusting of police let them go. The only complaint I have of the L.A. riots is that the rioters messed up their own neighborhoods instead of going to mess up a white neighborhood.

Eh rioters are usually stupid and dumb, so comon.

Has Portland been brought up yet?
Where apprently one person through a bottle (which was never filmed despite extensive filming of the whole protest) so the police ripped through the crowd shooting, beating and pepper spraying everyone? Dispite the fact they wern't being violent?

If thats no overreaction and excess force I don't know what is.

soviestan is a poster boy for why liberals feel the need to kick up a fuss when krazy kops go too far.

can you answer me this soviet.

do you recognise that there is on occasion excessive violence from the cops but

a: see it as a necessary evil

b: dont care because all those hippies and coons deserve it

or c: believe all and every story of police brutality to be a liberal led lie to destroy capitalism.

i personally have very good friends who are cops, and one are two are straight down the line pigs. they help suspects fall down stairs, they get stuck in at protests and will happily commit perjury of one of their mates is in trouble. they defend commerce and the ruling elite and make no apology for it.

they will all readily admit to a and b, but break their bollocks laughing at some of the c they read in the press.

I believe the more legitimate question that should be asked is; why do some people immediately suspect the police of wrongdoing before having a remotely complete picture of the situation?

various reasons or greater or lesser relevance. but everyone should suspect that the agents of the state are in the wrong until presented with solid evidence otherwise on general principle.

I believe the more legitimate question that should be asked is; why do some people immediately suspect the police of wrongdoing before having a remotely complete picture of the situation? What sort of intrinsic bias is required to come to that conclusion? Is the reputation that the police have with these individuals earned through long term visibility of their behavior, or because of one or more personal encounters with the police, in which the person was a suspect, or was not a suspect and handled roughly or improperly? If this is the case, is this systemic, or is it isolated?

These are questions that we should be asking on this matter, not some broad, general categoy about "Liberals and the Police".

As they are agents of the state, and within the public trust, their actions must, as a matter of course, be intensly scrutinized and fervently examined. While innocent until guilty must be the standard for criminal liability, even the slightest HINT of impropriety and a violation of public trust MUST be followed through on.

The police, by nature of putting themselves into that public trust, have willingly put themselves into a situation where there every action not only will be, but should be, examined extremely closely.

How many other times have there been riots (by liberals, your thread is about liberals) because the police 'tried to control someone resisting arrest' as you imply is the general case.

Were the LA rioters angry that the police had subdued someone trying to resist arrest, or angry that white people had been acquitted for beating up a black guy?

enough of your dirty lying-by-implication, shame on you

the county I used to live in had this problem. they got all up in arms about something the cops did and burned down homes and businesses. And this wasnt in the conservative/moderate part of town.

As they are agents of the state, and within the public trust, their actions must, as a matter of course, be intensly scrutinized and fervently examined. While innocent until guilty must be the standard for criminal liability, even the slightest HINT of impropriety and a violation of public trust MUST be followed through on.

The police, by nature of putting themselves into that public trust, have willingly put themselves into a situation where there every action not only will be, but should be, examined extremely closely.

I wholeheartedly agree that every action of the police, espescially when force is used, must be thoroughly scrutinized.

What I'm saying is that such scrutiny should be accompanied by doing your best to avoid excessive predispositions of hostility or support, and to view all of the information, instead of, as a member of this forum did yesterday, proclaiming the police to be in the wrong without having even a quarter of the information available on the matter.

the county I used to live in had this problem. they got all up in arms about something the cops did and burned down homes and businesses. And this wasnt in the conservative/moderate part of town.

In the country you used to live in towns are devided by political beleifes?

Why? That would have been stupid and pointless.

True, I should probably point out that I am hardly a supporter of people who riot.

But if these people are going to get pissed then they should take it out on someone else then to further screw up their already screwed up neighborhoods.

True, I should probably point out that I am hardly a supporter of people who riot.

But if these people are going to get pissed then they should take it out on someone else then to further screw up their already screwed up neighborhoods.

Meh, at least they screwed up a neighborhood that was already screwed up. Like I said, rioters are not exactly going to think their riots all the way through.

True, I should probably point out that I am hardly a supporter of people who riot.

But if these people are going to get pissed then they should take it out on someone else then to further screw up their already screwed up neighborhoods.

True.

various reasons or greater or lesser relevance. but everyone should suspect that the agents of the state are in the wrong until presented with solid evidence otherwise on general principle.

Starting out with such a precept makes it very difficult to analyse evidence with a minimum of bias (given that bias cannot be removed, one must seek to be as objective as one can). It would be incredibly easy to cripple the authority of the state to enforce basic law and order if we always took such a hostile attitude towards police. Instead, if we seek to evaluate on an even ground (and not give excessive weight to the testimony of one versus the testimony of another on any unreasonable basis) then we can best aid the police and society. We can prevent corruption AND permit the police to not become so excessively concerned that they do not act at all.

Meh, at least they screwed up a neighborhood that was already screwed up. Like I said, rioters are not exactly going to think their riots all the way through.

Rioters hardly think things through, true. But it just kind of irks me that people would start destroying their own neighborhood. They are only hurting themselves doing that.

In the country you used to live in towns are devided by political beleifes?

the county was divided. The north being the more well off, conservative place. The south being the less well off, liberal place. I would never go there because I was likely to get shot but I watched all the shit that went down there. Including how they always blamed the police for their problems.

I would suggest it's generally a good thing to hold police to a higher standard than crackheads.

That's just me however.

The rest of the thread is pretty superfluous.

In the country you used to live in towns are devided by political beleifes?

Don't be dense, demographics shows that certain political beliefs tend to be concentrated in certain areas, and this is for several reasons. Socio-economic status is the primary driver, with poorer areas tending to be more leftish and wealthier areas tending more towards the right. From this people tend to associate politically more with those who they live near, all of these factors drive geographically relevant political factors.

various reasons or greater or lesser relevance. but everyone should suspect that the agents of the state are in the wrong until presented with solid evidence otherwise on general principle.

What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

Oh, most of the working class here are pretty right wing and lefties are known for being middle class.

What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

Good in a criminal court of law.

Not necessary in determining whether one should keep his job or not. When it comes to positions in public trust, there mere possibility of illicit behavior should be sufficient for termination.

Good in a criminal court of law.

Not necessary in determining whether one should keep his job or not. When it comes to positions in public trust, there mere possibility of illicit behavior should be sufficient for termination.

So any claim of misconduct of an officer doesn't even have to be proven? Anyone can claim anything they want and to "make sure" the officer should be fired? How exactly would we have any police whatsoever?

So any claim of misconduct of an officer doesn't even have to be proven? Anyone can claim anything they want and to "make sure" the officer should be fired? How exactly would we have any police whatsoever?

If it appears there was a possibility of it, then yes. Not just "someone said so" but some factual basis, even if not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Good in a criminal court of law.

Not necessary in determining whether one should keep his job or not. When it comes to positions in public trust, there mere possibility of illicit behavior should be sufficient for termination.

"Caesar's wife must be above suspicion."

Those officers should have gone to prison but an all white jury who are blindly trusting of police let them go. The only complaint I have of the L.A. riots is that the rioters messed up their own neighborhoods instead of going to mess up a white neighborhood.

Nice. You should go back and read up there. I lived in Simi at the time, ansd worked for a local newspaper, so I was able to keep track of what was going on at the trial pretty easily.

In a nutshell, the first acquittal was because the jury felt that the prosecutor wasn't able to prove that Brisnow and company willfully and knowingly violated Kings civil rights.

Hell, we were all saying when the trial started and they stated the charges, that they were gonna walk.

And they did.

Blame the prosecutors for screwing up, not the jurists who agreed they couldn't make a case on wrongful charges.

And try to remember, the cops WERE convicted for the beating in a second trial.

If it appears there was a possibility of it, then yes. Not just "someone said so" but some factual basis, even if not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

If it can be proven in a court of law then the officer should be fired. If not, then there is clearly not enough evidence to do anything.

If it can be proven in a court of law then the officer should be fired. If not, then there is clearly not enough evidence to do anything.

I can be fired from my job because my boss doesn't like my haircut.

I can be fired from my job because I showed up wearing jeans when it's not "casual friday"

I can be fired from my job simply because my boss decides that she simply does not like me.

I can be fired from my job for absolutly no reason what so ever.

You're telling me that for agents of the government, with whom we place the public trust, should be so secure in their job security that there must be enough evidence that would provide proof beyond reasonable doubt?

You're telling me that for agents of the government, with whom we place the public trust, should be so secure in their job security that there must be enough evidence that would provide proof beyond reasonable doubt?

Absolutely. I would not feel very secure knowing that only the tiniest bit of doubt into an officers conduct would result in his loss of job. People shouldn't be senselessly fired from their job, no matter the profession. All this idea would do is start witch hunts against officers. It will be impossible for them to do their duty if they have to worry about their job security every time a suspect resists arrest.

in fairness I should not have said the tiniest possibility. What I meant was a claim with any reasonable degree of substantiation, even if it is not sufficient for criminal conviction.

What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

it's a vital protection for the people against the state. it should not be used as protection for the state against the people.

in fairness I should not have said the tiniest possibility. What I meant was a claim with any reasonable degree of substantiation, even if it is not sufficient for criminal conviction.

So, now you're substituting "probable" for "possible"?

THAT I would agree with.

Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt it too restrictive. Possible is too broad.

those cops actions were justified. If they weren't, they would have gone to prison. They were good cops, and good men. The riots were completely out of line.

Did you not see the same video everyone else saw? The one where they had the man down and beat on him with nighsticks for, like, a minute, him lying there limp and helpless.

And THIS is why I'm a moderate. Liberals are far too anti-authoritarian. I mean, seriously. This one border patrol guard was tried for the crime of SHOOTING AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT WHO WAS SELLING DRUGS. HE WAS DOING HIS FUCKING JOB!!! HE WASN'T BEING RACIST! HE WAS DOING HIS JOB! Fucking radicals...

innocent, hardworking cop, trying to do the right thing

Who?

ROFL

have you heard of what happen after that whole rodney king bullshit?

Is this the "bullshit" you were talking about?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Zp6ILYvzb4

I would suggest it's generally a good thing to hold police to a higher standard than crackheads.

That's just me however.

LOL, that is pretty funny.

I do agree with the OP though that the left wing just never seems to cut the police a break. But alot of left wingers are college activists or ex-hippies who used to protest...whatever...in their spare time and often had run in with the cops.

But if the police work for leftist heroes like Che Guevarra...then they are ok. :sniper:

Seems to me liberals always get up in arms when police use "excessive force" or "misuse their power." However there is never outrage when some piece of shit crackhead kills a cop in cold blood. But they are 1st to scream "racism" or "police brutality" when a cop roughs up some black guy who was trying to run from them. Or when they complained about how they "shot someone too much". That someone had killed two cops and was a waving gun, they didnt shoot enough imo. So why is it that when an innocent, hardworking cop, trying to do the right thing get killed in the line of duty the media and liberals brush it off as nothing. But when they try to control someone resisting arrest or use force against someone threatening their life, there are riots in the streets?

Once again, you have shown yourself to be a complete fucking moron, and made a sweeping generalization about anyone left of center. Police have a position of authority in society; therefore they must be closely watched in order to prevent abuse. Many policeman do their job without any problems, but there are enough thugs in their ranks to warrant putting increased scrutiny on any police action.

And THIS is why I'm a moderate. Liberals are far too anti-authoritarian. I mean, seriously.

for not allowing the state to get away with all of its violent actions?

This one border patrol guard was tried for the crime of SHOOTING AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT WHO WAS SELLING DRUGS. HE WAS DOING HIS FUCKING JOB!!! HE WASN'T BEING RACIST! HE WAS DOING HIS JOB! Fucking radicals...

which case was this?

And THIS is why I'm a moderate. Liberals are far too anti-authoritarian. I mean, seriously. This one border patrol guard was tried for the crime of SHOOTING AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT WHO WAS SELLING DRUGS. HE WAS DOING HIS FUCKING JOB!!! HE WASN'T BEING RACIST! HE WAS DOING HIS JOB! Fucking radicals...

Yes becasue I'm sure drug selling is a reason to shoot someone. Or the fact that he is an illegal is another reason? I'm pretty sure the cop didn't ask for a green card before he shot him. Would you have thought the same if he turned out to be US citizen? It seems to me that the fact that he is an illegal has nothing to do with it.

Hey I better call the pigs to shoot someone because about 100 kids at my school sell drugs. I'll tell them to bring extra ammo...

And THIS is why I'm a moderate. Liberals are far too anti-authoritarian. I mean, seriously. This one border patrol guard was tried for the crime of SHOOTING AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT WHO WAS SELLING DRUGS. HE WAS DOING HIS FUCKING JOB!!! HE WASN'T BEING RACIST! HE WAS DOING HIS JOB! Fucking radicals...

This coming from someone who scored -4.87 on the Authoritarian axis of the Political Compass test, and -7 something on the Econonomic left/right scale. You don't look like a moderate to me.

Hey I better call the pigs to shoot someone because about 100 kids at my school sell drugs. I'll tell them to bring extra ammo...

careful, those assholes might take you up on that.

Yes becasue I'm sure drug selling is a reason to shoot someone. Or the fact that he is an illegal is another reason? I'm pretty sure the cop didn't ask for a green card before he shot him. Would you have thought the same if he turned out to be US citizen? It seems to me that the fact that he is an illegal has nothing to do with it.

Hey I better call the pigs to shoot someone because about 100 kids at my school sell drugs. I'll tell them to bring extra ammo...

They caught him jumping the border. He was tossing drugs out of his pockets while being chased. Fucking liberals...

This one border patrol guard was tried for the crime of SHOOTING AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT WHO WAS SELLING DRUGS.

I agree. Illegal immigrants need to be shot whether or not they are selling drugs. That should put an end to the endless stream of illegal immigrants desecrating our great country and destroying it from the inside out.

They caught him jumping the border. He was tossing drugs out of his pockets while being chased. Fucking liberals...

and this is a capital offense now?

This coming from someone who scored -4.87 on the Authoritarian axis of the Political Compass test, and -7 something on the Econonomic left/right scale. You don't look like a moderate to me.

I'm moderate in the sense that half of my policies seem to be liberal, and the other half conservative.

I agree. Illegal immigrants need to be shot whether or not they are selling drugs. That should put an end to the endless stream of illegal immigrants desecrating our great country and destroying it from the inside out.

seriously, whose puppet are you?

and this is a capital offense now?

He was shot in the leg. Not in the head. And also, this part I forgot, THE MAN SHOT THE COP'S PARTNER!!!

I agree. Illegal immigrants need to be shot whether or not they are selling drugs. That should put an end to the endless stream of illegal immigrants desecrating our great country and destroying it from the inside out.

Holy shit. I'm agreeing with MTAE.

He was shot in the leg. Not in the head. And also, this part I forgot, THE MAN SHOT THE COP'S PARTNER!!!

i'd still like to see some more direct reference to this case you're talking about. when was it? where? and what sort of response are you reacting against?

I agree. Illegal immigrants need to be shot whether or not they are selling drugs. That should put an end to the endless stream of illegal immigrants desecrating our great country and destroying it from the inside out.

I bet you wish you lived in East Berlin don't you? Go back to the good 'ol days?

Troll.

He was shot in the leg. Not in the head. And also, this part I forgot, THE MAN SHOT THE COP'S PARTNER!!!

Ok, was there some big media hoopla about this, then? A guy (who happens to be an illegal immigrant, which despite MTAE's stupid ranting, doesn't mean he deserves death) was selling drugs, was confronted by a pair of cops, pulled a gun and shot one of them, and then got shot in the leg. That seems like the model of justifiable use of force to me.

Seriously, was there some big media hoopla about this? What makes this even remotely mentionable?

I don't see how thats funny...

I'm not at all surprised. Not in the least.

i'd still like to see some more direct reference to this case you're talking about. when was it? where? and what sort of response are you reacting against?

Argh. I wish Glenn Beck's website had a search button...

Ok, was there some big media hoopla about this, then? A guy (who happens to be an illegal immigrant, which despite MTAE's stupid ranting, doesn't mean he deserves death) was selling drugs, was confronted by a pair of cops, pulled a gun and shot one of them, and then got shot in the leg. That seems like the model of justifiable use of force to me.

Seriously, was there some big media hoopla about this? What makes this even remotely mentionable?

He was arrested because he shot the immigrant.

Glenn Beck

ah...

This coming from someone who scored -4.87 on the Authoritarian axis of the Political Compass test, and -7 something on the Econonomic left/right scale. You don't look like a moderate to me.

what political compass test? do you have a link? i would love to take it.

I agree. Illegal immigrants need to be shot whether or not they are selling drugs. That should put an end to the endless stream of illegal immigrants desecrating our great country and destroying it from the inside out.

whoah come on now. I am all for protecting our borders, immigration laws and National Sovereignty...but I also believe in God given Human rights. You do not murder someone just because they are desperate, discarded by their own government and want nothing more than to feed themselves and their family.

honestly now, saying what you just said makes me think you are a liberal pretending to be some kind of twisted conservative like those mock blogs out there.

whoah come on now. I am all for protecting our borders, immigration laws and National Sovereignty...but I also believe in God given Human rights. You do not murder someone just because they are desperate, discarded by their own government and want nothing more than to feed themselves and their family.

honestly now, saying what you just said makes me think you are a liberal pretending to be some kind of twisted conservative like those mock blogs out there.

Drug. Dealer.

Actually that's not always true. Back in July a guy who was on a cell phone tower (probably working on it) was shot by a cop. Ever since then several local Conservative talk radio host (1110 WBT) have been talking about how a guy was innocent and that the cop has killed an innocent person. The Charlotte/Meck police department decide to do it's own invesigation into the case, even that didn't appease the conservative talk show host. They wanted someone outside the Charlotte/Meck police department to look into the shooting. So, your scenerio doesn't always happen.

I said "all to often." Not "always."

Just because it doesn't happen everytime doesn't mean that there isn't a pattern of it happening.

Here in New York police shot a guy, even though he wasn't wanted for anything, and when public uproar ensued Guliani immediatly went looking into the dead guy's records and found that he was arrested for shoplifting once when he was a teenager. Then went to the media and used that to explain that it was probably the suspect's fault.

Note, there were no warrants out for this guy.

Drug. Dealer.

Doesn't. Matter. Moron.

Cops aren't judges or executioners. Their guns are for stopping people who are threats at the moment. Running away and dropping bags of drugs isn't going to kill anyone. There is no crime so horrible that the job of executioner can fall to the police.

Doesn't. Matter. Moron.

Cops aren't judges or executioners. Their guns are for stopping people who are threats at the moment. Running away and dropping bags of drugs isn't going to kill anyone. There is no crime so horrible that the job of executioner can fall to the police.

Shot. Partner.

Seems to me liberals always get up in arms when police use "excessive force" or "misuse their power." However there is never outrage when some piece of shit crackhead kills a cop in cold blood. But they are 1st to scream "racism" or "police brutality" when a cop roughs up some black guy who was trying to run from them. Or when they complained about how they "shot someone too much". That someone had killed two cops and was a waving gun, they didnt shoot enough imo. So why is it that when an innocent, hardworking cop, trying to do the right thing get killed in the line of duty the media and liberals brush it off as nothing. But when they try to control someone resisting arrest or use force against someone threatening their life, there are riots in the streets?

Im liberal my fathers liberal, ok so thats bs hes conservative but I am working on that. any way he is a cop and I think cop's get a bad rap a lot. But that doesn't mean they all ways do the right thing. The thing is people take up their issues with the law and the government with cop's who are just doing their jobs. Any ways I would like to remind people cop's are people and are going to be both good and bad guys not to mention the jobs suck you see the worst in people every day considering you only deal with crime and nothing else all day. My point is this cops aren't perfect we need to realize they will make mistake and somes will even do bad things but people need to lay off cops when they have a problem with the governments policies they didn't make them. Oh and conservatives need to stop throwing mud at liberals every damn chance they get when conservatives dress themselves in it.

Hey, I know plenty of hard working honest cops. Just because there's a few bad ones doesn't mean they're all bad. Also, hey if the suspect didn't want to have his head slammed into the pavement, then he shouldn't have resisted arrest!

now that's something i really hate. who wouldn't resist arrest? the natural reaction to being restrained by some dickhead on a power trip is to try and get free. the worst thing about that is apparently it's even a crime in itself. that's fucked up.

Doesn't. Matter. Moron.

Cops aren't judges or executioners. Their guns are for stopping people who are threats at the moment. Running away and dropping bags of drugs isn't going to kill anyone. There is no crime so horrible that the job of executioner can fall to the police.

Cop's should have the right to kill any one they please if it can be proved that there was reason to believe the man was a threat to his life or another innocent life. For instance if you are dumb enough to point a gun at a cop i have no pity for you if your ass gets shot.

now that's something i really hate. who wouldn't resist arrest? the natural reaction to being restrained by some dickhead on a power trip is to try and get free. the worst thing about that is apparently it's even a crime in itself. that's fucked up.

If you resist arest your dumb your only going to get yourself more screwed. I wouldn't resist arest the assumption is if you are innocent you wont resist because you have nothing to hide. If you resist on principle, you are resisting on a dumb little power trip of your own. How does that makes sense. According to that logic your no better than the cop the cop makes his arrogant little power statement then you make your own by resisting how does that make you better?

Cop's should have the right to kill any one they please if it can be proved that there was reason to believe the man was a threat to his life or another innocent life. For instance if you are dumb enough to point a gun at a cop i have no pity for you if your ass gets shot.

No-one should have the right to kill anyone they please, no matter the circumstance. Pointing a gun at anyone is a serious offence. It does not matter who is involved, nor should it.

No-one should have the right to kill anyone they please, no matter the circumstance. Pointing a gun at anyone is a serious offence. It does not matter who is involved, nor should it.

So say the person you're shooting at has killed forty people in cold blood. It's not right for you to shoot him, even if he has just killed someone close to you AND is now after you?

No-one should have the right to kill anyone they please, no matter the circumstance. Pointing a gun at anyone is a serious offence. It does not matter who is involved, nor should it.

If you tell people they dont have the right to shoot in defense of themselves when a maniac points a gun at them no one would take the job and their would be no cops. who in their right mind would take a job where you are not allowed to fire your weapon at another man, but instead the maniac criminal can because the maniac criminal doesnt give a damn about the law. lol and if you do defend yourself you get prosecuted by the law thats bs. There would be no cops there would be no reason to be a cop when criminals are given preferential treatment over you. They can kill whoever they want yet you are still responsible to take them alive thats bull, im not saying you should'nt try to take them alive but if your life is threatened screw that. I am not going to support a family losing a hard working honest cop because some dumb ass criminal doesn't care about the law and we strip cops of defending themselves.

My father would have been dead before I turned 14 if cops weren't allowed to fire thier weapon in defense. So i frankly don't give a damn about criminals rights to live they forfit that when they threaten another mans life be it policemen or otherwise. Still try to take him alive and use due process but screw him if he decides to make more ruckus and kill more people.

But if the police work for leftist heroes like Che Guevarra...then they are ok. :sniper:

Well, of course, Che Guevera lined random people up against walls and shot them in the name of a cause they (specifically people who idolize Che Guevera and other murderous assholes like him) believe, automatically making it justified.

Doesn't. Matter. Moron.

Cops aren't judges or executioners. Their guns are for stopping people who are threats at the moment. Running away and dropping bags of drugs isn't going to kill anyone. There is no crime so horrible that the job of executioner can fall to the police.

There is one and only one. When a criminal thinks the right of executioner can fall to him. Screw him/her.

What the hell is this?

One person says "Police shouldn't be allowed to shoot anyone they want indiscriminantly."
the next counters "You want cops to just die when people draw weapons on them?"
the first replies "no, I just meant that they shouldn't shoot unless it's absolutely necessary"
The second retorts "You just love murderers, don't you."

Seriously, I expect cops to fire their weapons in defense of their own lives and the lives of others, and for no other reason. I expect them to use non-lethal methods when they have an equal or greater chance of working. I expect them to use the correct amount of force to apprehend a criminal and no more. I expect them, moreover, not to force a man down, just to continue beating on his helpless form because they want to see a black man "Put in his place." I expect them also to not shoot an Iraq war veteran who was not threatening them for standing up after the officer said "Get up" three times. I expect them not to beat and tazer a retarded man to death for the crime of being near an ATM. And I expect them to not try to fucking cover it up and whitewash the whole goddamn thing. (By the way, those last two happened in my home state of Washington.)

There are plenty of reasons to watch the watchman.

now that's something i really hate. who wouldn't resist arrest? the natural reaction to being restrained by some dickhead on a power trip is to try and get free. the worst thing about that is apparently it's even a crime in itself. that's fucked up.

No the natural response to a cop telling you what to do is to do it. See because if you dont, you will get hurt.

No the natural response to a cop telling you what to do is to do it. See because if you dont, you will get hurt.

According to the rules set by the Federal Government, Police are supposed to go by the "Use Of Force Model". If someone runs from them they are only supposed to use non lethal force to apprehend them, this DOES NOT include using their nightsticks to beat the living shit out of the person. If a cop is shot at, they are to shoot back to wound, not kill.

No where does it say in the Use of Force model that it is alright to beat someone to an inch of their life because they upset the cop.

Do you mean what happens when Liberals control the police?


Here ya go (http://cccp-ru.tripod.com/red-army.jpg)

Do you mean what happens when Liberals control the police?


Here ya go (http://cccp-ru.tripod.com/red-army.jpg)

Liberals arn't communists or soviets.
you are an asshole for making this comparison.

"People should not be afraid of thier governments, Governments should be afraid of its people."

-V.

The police are always right. No matter what. Anyone that they beat up must deserve it.

The police are always right. No matter what. Anyone that they beat up must deserve it.

Hey Kan?

You got some sarcasm on your shoe there, bro.

Hey Kan?

You got some sarcasm on your shoe there, bro.

Oh, my bad.

*smears it on your pants leg*

:)

Oh, my bad.

*smears it on your pants leg*

:)

AEEEEEEAAGGH!

KANABIA SARCASM SAUCE!

HOT WATER!!

HOT WATER!!

MUST CLEANSE THE EVIL!!!

Do you mean what happens when Liberals control the police?


Here ya go (http://cccp-ru.tripod.com/red-army.jpg)

Oh please. What is between those ears of yours?

AEEEEEEAAGGH!

KANABIA SARCASM SAUCE!

HOT WATER!!

HOT WATER!!

MUST CLEANSE THE EVIL!!!

It's permanently stained. You'll just have to make that pair your new internet pants. :)

It's permanently stained. You'll just have to make that pair your new internet pants. :)

and when Im not wearing them, they'll just stand up all by themselves.

And no one to define what the Police should be.
Men before all, they are not soldiers but tools for Justice and Society.
And liberals are suckers 'bout criminals.

I say only solitary confinment in jails, longer sentences.
Eventually use of drugs to make these beasts quieter.
It could cost, but they will be very affraid of prisons.

That should be a first step before defining the police job.

People rightly demand higher standards from the police as the police are trusted with immense powers over your average citizen.

When you have a police shooting the majority of people demanding inquires are not looking to go after a cop because they killed someone, but to make sure that the cop did not abuse his power and kill someone for other reasons.


Now very very few people would have any sympathy with crackheads shooting cops, and they rightly view said crackhead as an evil dangerous criminal who deserves to be locked away for a long long time. And very very few object to police defending themselves, all we want to see is that they are actually acting in self defense and not in cold blood.

Do you mean what happens when Liberals control the police?


Here ya go (http://cccp-ru.tripod.com/red-army.jpg)

They create tripod?

No the natural response to a cop telling you what to do is to do it. See because if you dont, you will get hurt.

even when the cop is acting illegally or unjustly?

is there any situation you can invisage in your narrow experience that people are entitled to ask questions of authority and not get physically attacked?

No the natural response to a cop telling you what to do is to do it. See because if you dont, you will get hurt.

See you know what the great thing about America is?

If I am walking down and a cop comes up to me and says "hey you, stop there, I want to talk to you" I am absolutly and totally within my rights to say "that's nice, I don't want to talk to you" and keep walking.

Liberals arn't communists or soviets.
you are an asshole for making this comparison.

And police aren't the military. Parts of downtown NYC started to look like that after 9/11, for whatever good it was going to do (none).

The police look like that in Mexico now, and that's hardly a liberal paradise.

And no one to define what the Police should be.
Men before all, they are not soldiers but tools for Justice and Society.
And liberals are suckers 'bout criminals.

I say only solitary confinment in jails, longer sentences.
Eventually use of drugs to make these beasts quieter.
It could cost, but they will be very affraid of prisons.

That should be a first step before defining the police job.

Yes, because years of gang violence and forced sodomy sound like a vacation to most people. :rolleyes: