Options

Mehserle found guilty; Oakland (relatively) safe for now. [BART shooting]

189101214

Posts

  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    When was the last time you saw a news story where a cop did something stupid and his department actually even critized him for it?

    When was the last time they staged protests, walkouts, etc in support of him?

    Hint: #2 happens A LOT more.

    In Cincinnati a couple years ago, a cop shot and killed an unarmed black man who was running down an alley away from him. The officer was suspended with pay pending the investigation, and eventually kept his job.

    The FOP characterized this as "hanging him out to dry" and advised officers to not bother chasing drug dealers and whatnot for a city that wouldn't support them if they got in a bad situation.

    TL DR on
  • Options
    LuxLux Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    No you don't get it. To Thanatos cops aren't really people, so if you do bad things to them then its alright.

    Well, I mean, I'm almost to the point of considering cops to be inhuman; I just don't understand what great and wonderful thing could possibly come from putting some asshole to death or ensuring he gets raped.


    I hate cops. I was permanently disfigured by state police in South Africa (I was being a pretentious fucking moron, but I was nineteen and hardly deserved the baton swing that would darken my smile forever), so that's my bias.

    I feel for you there, but if I went around saying I hated black people because I got the shit stabbed out of me when one tried to mug me (yes really) then I'd have no end of people screaming about how wrong racism is and how you can't judge a group of people based on the actions of one.

    Yet that is exactly what I see here. Maybe its just the forum and cop hate being "okay" among these educated elites that populate it, but w/e.

    But I don't think the police here in the US have anything on the shit that SA police have going on. Its why I roll my eyes so hard at Thanatos when he goes off. He's a cottage cheese coloured white boy who lives in a safety net provided by the people he rails so hard against. He's comparing his "hardships" of getting stopped and asked for his ID to your getting your head caved in, which is kind of LOL and a little sad.

    Sorry about your face though. I know its not much but its all I got.

    But if you were shot by a gang member, you'd be within your rights to hate gangs. Ender was battered by by a gang member, and his friends were brutalized by the rest of the gang's local branch. It just happens that the gang wears blue and isn't made up of black people.

    Except gang members are inherently bad people so the analogy still falls apart.

    Okay, there's two problems with what you're swaying:
    That difference doesn't have any effect on the analogy
    That's not a difference.

    Also, hey now, that's a generalization of gang members.

    Lux on
  • Options
    mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »

    Um. From all the local coverage I've seen, no one had a gun or used a gun in any of the looting. I mean, obviously that doesn't make the looting somehow more excusable, but we shouldn't exaggerate the facts, either. And most television coverage (including national) of the looting that I've seen clearly stated that the original protests were peaceful, and that it wasn't until after nightfall that a group broke off the main protest to loot and riot. Of course they're not going to spend half their time talking about the peaceful protests, because nothing really happened that was newsworthy beyond what can be summed up in two or three sentences.

    Um. From the local coverage I've seen and heard, one shopkeeper was dismissing the whole "protesters gone wild" thing by describing the situation I mentioned.

    And all the online/news coverage (national) of the protests I saw had headlines like "Violent Protests in Oakland" that buried the fact that the protests were overwhelmingly peaceful (and the violent protesters were pretty much opportunist looters and Black Bloc assholes) if they mentioned that at all.

    Funnily, the local media seemed to think that it was "newsworthy" that the majority of the protests were peaceful and that during the daytime protests, people yelling for riots were shushed by the crowd. That isn't as exciting as pretending that THOSE PEOPLE just went nuts (again, you know how they are and shit).

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I guess I missed that one. Which channel did you see it on?

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    I guess I missed that one. Which channel did you see it on?

    Uh, the AP feeds? Which national media like the NYT and WaPo get their local news from, and pass along?

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Options
    The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    No you don't get it. To Thanatos cops aren't really people, so if you do bad things to them then its alright.

    Well, I mean, I'm almost to the point of considering cops to be inhuman; I just don't understand what great and wonderful thing could possibly come from putting some asshole to death or ensuring he gets raped.


    I hate cops. I was permanently disfigured by state police in South Africa (I was being a pretentious fucking moron, but I was nineteen and hardly deserved the baton swing that would darken my smile forever), so that's my bias.

    I feel for you there, but if I went around saying I hated black people because I got the shit stabbed out of me when one tried to mug me (yes really) then I'd have no end of people screaming about how wrong racism is and how you can't judge a group of people based on the actions of one.

    Yet that is exactly what I see here. Maybe its just the forum and cop hate being "okay" among these educated elites that populate it, but w/e.

    But I don't think the police here in the US have anything on the shit that SA police have going on. Its why I roll my eyes so hard at Thanatos when he goes off. He's a cottage cheese coloured white boy who lives in a safety net provided by the people he rails so hard against. He's comparing his "hardships" of getting stopped and asked for his ID to your getting your head caved in, which is kind of LOL and a little sad.

    Sorry about your face though. I know its not much but its all I got.

    But if you were shot by a gang member, you'd be within your rights to hate gangs. Ender was battered by by a gang member, and his friends were brutalized by the rest of the gang's local branch. It just happens that the gang wears blue and isn't made up of black people.

    Except gang members are inherently bad people so the analogy still falls apart.

    Okay, there's two problems with what you're swaying:
    That difference doesn't have any effect on the analogy
    That's not a difference.

    Here I'll break it down.
    Hating a gang because what one gang member did to you is okay. A gang, by most definitions, is to shoot people for no/little reason or to generally commit crimes and hurt people/break property.

    Police are not by definition a group of violent sociopaths who go around hurting people and committing crimes because it makes them feel tough.

    The Muffin Man on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    No you don't get it. To Thanatos cops aren't really people, so if you do bad things to them then its alright.

    Well, I mean, I'm almost to the point of considering cops to be inhuman; I just don't understand what great and wonderful thing could possibly come from putting some asshole to death or ensuring he gets raped.


    I hate cops. I was permanently disfigured by state police in South Africa (I was being a pretentious fucking moron, but I was nineteen and hardly deserved the baton swing that would darken my smile forever), so that's my bias.

    I feel for you there, but if I went around saying I hated black people because I got the shit stabbed out of me when one tried to mug me (yes really) then I'd have no end of people screaming about how wrong racism is and how you can't judge a group of people based on the actions of one.

    Yet that is exactly what I see here. Maybe its just the forum and cop hate being "okay" among these educated elites that populate it, but w/e.

    But I don't think the police here in the US have anything on the shit that SA police have going on. Its why I roll my eyes so hard at Thanatos when he goes off. He's a cottage cheese coloured white boy who lives in a safety net provided by the people he rails so hard against. He's comparing his "hardships" of getting stopped and asked for his ID to your getting your head caved in, which is kind of LOL and a little sad.

    Sorry about your face though. I know its not much but its all I got.

    But if you were shot by a gang member, you'd be within your rights to hate gangs. Ender was battered by by a gang member, and his friends were brutalized by the rest of the gang's local branch. It just happens that the gang wears blue and isn't made up of black people.

    Except gang members are inherently bad people so the analogy still falls apart.

    Okay, there's two problems with what you're swaying:
    That difference doesn't have any effect on the analogy
    That's not a difference.

    Here I'll break it down.
    Hating a gang because what one gang member did to you is okay. A gang, by most definitions, is to shoot people for no/little reason or to generally commit crimes and hurt people/break property.

    Police are not by definition a group of violent sociopaths who go around hurting people and committing crimes because it makes them feel tough.

    Okay, there's two problems with what you're swaying:
    That difference doesn't have any effect on the analogy
    That's not a difference.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    A gang member might assault someone because of profit motive or because he feels disrespected or because he just gets off on asserting his authority.

    A police officer, on the other hand, might assault someone because of profit motive or because he feels disrespected or because he just gets off on asserting his authority.

    TL DR on
  • Options
    HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The main difference here though is that in your example you are hating the gang for doing what gangs do.

    Hating all police for one of them doing what the police aren't supposed to be doing is a little strange. Though understandable if you are in a region where the police are always doing shit they aren't supposed to be doing.

    You have heard of "the blue wall of silence", right?

    Yes, but it has nothing to do with what I posted.

    it really does, though. the whole point of this argument is that everyone basically agrees that every single cop isn't shooting unarmed kids and tasering old women while they're lying in their beds, but the fact that every fucking cop will stick up for a crooked one makes it really hard to differentiate.

    the entire united states is a region where the police are always doing shit they aren't supposed to be doing. or never doing shit they are supposed to be doing.

    Uh huh. It still doesn't make any sense and neither does the analogy.

    You are saying it's ok to hate all cops because one cop was a dick to you and you feel that no cops will turn on him for it.

    Yes, refusing to do your job because it might make someone you know actually have to take responsibility for brutality is generally held to be a good reason to not like you.

    Yes, and when a cop does do it, you can hate that cop for it.

    That doesn't make hating all cops for something one cop did, that he wasn't even supposed to be doing, any less irrational.

    I can hate all the other cops for supporting him.

    How do you know they all support him?

    He doesn't and is talking out of his ass?

    I know quite a few cops (friends father is a cop and I've hung out with them a few nights playing cards) who find the entire thing utterly fucked up. The one who said it wasn't our place to consider the situation because we weren't there was immediately and rightly shouted down for being an idiot.

    HappylilElf on
  • Options
    ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    But would they actually try to get something done if it happened to one of their cop buddies?

    Its one thing to condemn a fellow cop for their actions at home, to family/close friends, and quite another to do it at work. Especially if you think you're the only one who feels that way

    ronzo on
  • Options
    HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I have no idea. I suspect their answers would be almost universally "yes" but I also don't think I'd trust anyone's answer until they found themselves in that situation.

    HappylilElf on
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I have no idea. I suspect their answers would be almost universally "yes" but I also don't think I'd trust anyone's answer until they found themselves in that situation.

    And the public record on that point isn't good.

    Phoenix-D on
  • Options
    ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    I have no idea. I suspect their answers would be almost universally "yes" but I also don't think I'd trust anyone's answer until they found themselves in that situation.

    And the public record on that point isn't good.

    this is what i was getting at

    even when there is overwhelming evidence that a cop fucked up, the best you can usually hope for is that they all just stay out of it.

    ronzo on
  • Options
    HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    No argument here.

    Of course the assholes who go out and protest over their buddy get a lot more coverage than a random group of cops sitting around and saying "Yeah, that was fucked."

    HappylilElf on
  • Options
    armageddonboundarmageddonbound Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    You can accuse some posters of having just as much of a pro cop bias as you can accuse others of having the anti.

    Cops are not an alien life form. They are just as likely to cut corners, abuse the system, and lie as anyone you have ever worked with, counting the shitty jobs and the decent ones. So that gives what? About a 20% chance for them to be "bad guys".

    armageddonbound on
  • Options
    armageddonboundarmageddonbound Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Sorry for the double post, but I'm reading through the thread from page one, and it's amazing that backwardsname finds it incomprehensible that the cop would shoot the guy intentionally.

    Just look at the Danziger 7 case. The cops finally admitted to shooting repeatedly at the back of civilians that were running away, meeting up to fabricate a story, and to plant weapons.

    armageddonbound on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Sorry for the double post, but I'm reading through the thread from page one, and it's amazing that backwardsname finds it incomprehensible that the cop would shoot the guy intentionally.

    Just look at the Danziger 7 case. The cops finally admitted to shooting repeatedly at the back of civilians that were running away, meeting up to fabricate a story, and to plant weapons.

    I'd say Danziger is a special case. Still, I'd agree that it's definitely possible that Mehserle shot intentionally, I just think that it is by far the less likely scenario.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Sorry for the double post, but I'm reading through the thread from page one, and it's amazing that backwardsname finds it incomprehensible that the cop would shoot the guy intentionally.

    Just look at the Danziger 7 case. The cops finally admitted to shooting repeatedly at the back of civilians that were running away, meeting up to fabricate a story, and to plant weapons.

    I'd say Danziger is a special case. Still, I'd agree that it's definitely possible that Mehserle shot intentionally, I just think that it is by far the less likely scenario.

    And impossible to prove.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    By reading through this thread (and others that we've had on the topic), it's come to my attention that police have far more clout/power than the average person, get to abuse it at whim with little fear of consequence, a job that isn't even in the top ten for most likely to be injured or killed in the line of duty, amazing benefits and an average pay scale that covers them nicely.

    Why aren't more people here working to become police officers?

    We've established that it's easy. It's not terribly dangerous compared to many professions. You don't even have to be particularly qualified beyond certain standards and measures. Good pay, quality benefits on the taxpayers dime, and man, I won't even tell you what those guys and gals are making on cushy overtime duties.

    So either it's a chance to live it large without fear of consequence, or (and here's the less snarky part of the post) it's a chance to change things from the inside. To be that cop who makes sure others stay on the side of righteousness. To do good work, refuse corruption and to put the safety and well being of others before your own.

    And I'm not being sarcastic here. This isn't some thinly veiled "cops are awesome, back off you guys, stop being meanies" counter-post. If the job has such low standards for great benefits and makes you employable in every State (if I'm not mistaken), it seems like a pretty easy way to make a good living and potentially improve society, both in dealings with the public and from within.

    Apologies if this is tangental to the original topic, but the issue of how good cops have it and how awfully they treat people comes up time and again, and it just hit me now that... man, if it's so cushy and easy, we should all go become cops.

    Personally I've pondered it, but will likely need at least another year at the gym before I could even pass the physical, so that's on the back burner for the time being.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • Options
    AroducAroduc regular
    edited July 2010
    Forar wrote: »
    Etc.

    A.) It is one of the most dangerous jobs
    B.) The pay's nowhere near as good as you seem to think
    C.) Extremely high stress
    D.) Forced overtime/odd hours are standard

    Aroduc on
  • Options
    ApollohApolloh Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Sorry for the double post, but I'm reading through the thread from page one, and it's amazing that backwardsname finds it incomprehensible that the cop would shoot the guy intentionally.

    Just look at the Danziger 7 case. The cops finally admitted to shooting repeatedly at the back of civilians that were running away, meeting up to fabricate a story, and to plant weapons.

    I'd say Danziger is a special case. Still, I'd agree that it's definitely possible that Mehserle shot intentionally, I just think that it is by far the less likely scenario.

    And impossible to prove.

    Which means it isnt murder!

    Phoenix Wright wins again.

    Apolloh on
    smb3banner.png
    XBLGT:Banzeye SC2: Apollo.394
  • Options
    YamiB.YamiB. Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    Etc.

    A.) It is one of the most dangerous jobs
    B.) The pay's nowhere near as good as you seem to think
    C.) Extremely high stress
    D.) Forced overtime/odd hours are standard

    A) Its not in the top ten at the very least.
    Top 10 dangerous jobs
    The occupations with the highest fatality rates in 2006.
    Occupation Deaths per 100,000 workers
    Fishermen 141.7
    Pilots 87.8
    Loggers 82.3
    Structural iron and steel workers 61.0
    Refuse collectors 41.8
    Farmers and ranchers 37.1
    Power linemen 34.9
    Roofers 33.9
    Drivers 27.1
    Agricultural workers 21.7
    http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/07/pf/2006_most_dangerous_jobs/index.htm

    B)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Salary

    Being in the top third of wage-earners 25 or older seems pretty good for a job that does not require a college degree.

    YamiB. on
  • Options
    AroducAroduc regular
    edited July 2010
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    Etc.

    A.) It is one of the most dangerous jobs
    B.) The pay's nowhere near as good as you seem to think
    C.) Extremely high stress
    D.) Forced overtime/odd hours are standard

    A) Its not in the top ten at the very least.
    Top 10 dangerous jobs
    The occupations with the highest fatality rates in 2006.
    Occupation Deaths per 100,000 workers
    Fishermen 141.7
    Pilots 87.8
    Loggers 82.3
    Structural iron and steel workers 61.0
    Refuse collectors 41.8
    Farmers and ranchers 37.1
    Power linemen 34.9
    Roofers 33.9
    Drivers 27.1
    Agricultural workers 21.7
    http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/07/pf/2006_most_dangerous_jobs/index.htm

    B)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Salary

    Being in the top third of wage-earners 25 or older seems pretty good for a job that does not require a college degree.

    In 2006, it was #12. In 2007 it was #10. Hell, just remove all the jobs that you can do near civilization and it jumps to at least #7.

    I also feel like I should be making fun of you for that 'wage-earner' citation, but I'll let you off because it's just your standard Wikipedia stupidity. From that, the median income is closer to around 54%.

    Aroduc on
  • Options
    ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Perhaps you've missed some of our previous discussions on the topic. Even insinuating that being a police officer is in any way difficult, challenging, low paying or dangerous is often met with significant evidence to the contrary, so I decided to cut out the middle man and run with the usual flow of the thread.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    The couple of pages where we discussed how you can be dismissed as an applicant for being "Too smart" seemed telling to me.

    But if your uncle's a cop, you're in.

    Taramoor on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Aroduc wrote: »
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    Etc.

    A.) It is one of the most dangerous jobs
    B.) The pay's nowhere near as good as you seem to think
    C.) Extremely high stress
    D.) Forced overtime/odd hours are standard

    A) Its not in the top ten at the very least.
    Top 10 dangerous jobs
    The occupations with the highest fatality rates in 2006.
    Occupation Deaths per 100,000 workers
    Fishermen 141.7
    Pilots 87.8
    Loggers 82.3
    Structural iron and steel workers 61.0
    Refuse collectors 41.8
    Farmers and ranchers 37.1
    Power linemen 34.9
    Roofers 33.9
    Drivers 27.1
    Agricultural workers 21.7
    http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/07/pf/2006_most_dangerous_jobs/index.htm

    B)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Salary

    Being in the top third of wage-earners 25 or older seems pretty good for a job that does not require a college degree.

    In 2006, it was #12. In 2007 it was #10. Hell, just remove all the jobs that you can do near civilization and it jumps to at least #7.

    I also feel like I should be making fun of you for that 'wage-earner' citation, but I'll let you off because it's just your standard Wikipedia stupidity. From that, the median income is closer to around 54%.
    They also get better pay and way better benefits than anyone above them on the "dangerous job" list. Not to mention that the number given is most likely their median salary, rather than what they actually get paid, which is usually considerably higher than that (since they usually get to work a bunch of overtime).

    Nobody is denying that their job is dangerous; we just question why it deserves more respect and/or deference than more dangerous jobs which are at least as important that aren't compensated nearly as well.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I think the best solution is to let fishermen get away with three murders per year because their jobs are so much more dangerous. Anything less would be unfair and uncivilized.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    Etc.

    A.) It is one of the most dangerous jobs
    B.) The pay's nowhere near as good as you seem to think
    C.) Extremely high stress
    D.) Forced overtime/odd hours are standard

    A) Its not in the top ten at the very least.
    Top 10 dangerous jobs
    The occupations with the highest fatality rates in 2006.
    Occupation Deaths per 100,000 workers
    Fishermen 141.7
    Pilots 87.8
    Loggers 82.3
    Structural iron and steel workers 61.0
    Refuse collectors 41.8
    Farmers and ranchers 37.1
    Power linemen 34.9
    Roofers 33.9
    Drivers 27.1
    Agricultural workers 21.7
    http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/07/pf/2006_most_dangerous_jobs/index.htm

    B)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Salary

    Being in the top third of wage-earners 25 or older seems pretty good for a job that does not require a college degree.

    In 2006, it was #12. In 2007 it was #10. Hell, just remove all the jobs that you can do near civilization and it jumps to at least #7.

    I also feel like I should be making fun of you for that 'wage-earner' citation, but I'll let you off because it's just your standard Wikipedia stupidity. From that, the median income is closer to around 54%.
    They also get better pay and way better benefits than anyone above them on the "dangerous job" list. Not to mention that the number given is most likely their median salary, rather than what they actually get paid, which is usually considerably higher than that (since they usually get to work a bunch of overtime).

    Nobody is denying that their job is dangerous; we just question why it deserves more respect and/or deference than more dangerous jobs which are at least as important that aren't compensated nearly as well.

    A) Working overtime if you don't want to blows, regardless of the pay.
    B) Some of the people above them on the "dangerous job" list actually have rather decent pay and benefits. Others, less so, but you were making a blanket statement.
    C) I'd wager that a cop who tries to "change it from the inside" and rat out his fellow cops would find that being a cop suddenly becomes marginally (or extremely) more dangerous than it already was (not to you, but to Forar).

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I only have myself to blame on this one.

    Mistakes were made.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Apolloh wrote: »
    delroland wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Sorry for the double post, but I'm reading through the thread from page one, and it's amazing that backwardsname finds it incomprehensible that the cop would shoot the guy intentionally.

    Just look at the Danziger 7 case. The cops finally admitted to shooting repeatedly at the back of civilians that were running away, meeting up to fabricate a story, and to plant weapons.

    I'd say Danziger is a special case. Still, I'd agree that it's definitely possible that Mehserle shot intentionally, I just think that it is by far the less likely scenario.

    And impossible to prove.

    Which means it isnt murder!

    Phoenix Wright wins again.

    Well, really it means that it could have been murder, but because it isn't likely, and because there isn't enough of a case to prove it, we have to assume it wasn't. For better or for worse, that's how our legal system works.

    Needless to say, he still fucked up, he was still convicted of a felony, and he will still be going to prison, just not for as long as some passionate people might want him to.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    Etc.

    A.) It is one of the most dangerous jobs
    B.) The pay's nowhere near as good as you seem to think
    C.) Extremely high stress
    D.) Forced overtime/odd hours are standard

    ...In which country? This might be true of western countries, and especially true of Mexico, but of, say, South Africa? Or Ba'athist Iraq? Or North Korea? Or Zimbabwe? Or Saudi Arabia?


    This isn't 'Planet America', just FYI.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    The Ender wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    Etc.

    A.) It is one of the most dangerous jobs
    B.) The pay's nowhere near as good as you seem to think
    C.) Extremely high stress
    D.) Forced overtime/odd hours are standard

    ...In which country? This might be true of western countries, and especially true of Mexico, but of, say, South Africa? Or Ba'athist Iraq? Or North Korea? Or Zimbabwe? Or Saudi Arabia?


    This isn't 'Planet America', just FYI.

    This thread is about American cops...

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Forar wrote: »
    By reading through this thread (and others that we've had on the topic), it's come to my attention that police have far more clout/power than the average person, get to abuse it at whim with little fear of consequence, a job that isn't even in the top ten for most likely to be injured or killed in the line of duty, amazing benefits and an average pay scale that covers them nicely.

    Why aren't more people here working to become police officers?

    We've established that it's easy. It's not terribly dangerous compared to many professions. You don't even have to be particularly qualified beyond certain standards and measures. Good pay, quality benefits on the taxpayers dime, and man, I won't even tell you what those guys and gals are making on cushy overtime duties.

    So either it's a chance to live it large without fear of consequence, or (and here's the less snarky part of the post) it's a chance to change things from the inside. To be that cop who makes sure others stay on the side of righteousness. To do good work, refuse corruption and to put the safety and well being of others before your own.

    And I'm not being sarcastic here. This isn't some thinly veiled "cops are awesome, back off you guys, stop being meanies" counter-post. If the job has such low standards for great benefits and makes you employable in every State (if I'm not mistaken), it seems like a pretty easy way to make a good living and potentially improve society, both in dealings with the public and from within.

    Apologies if this is tangental to the original topic, but the issue of how good cops have it and how awfully they treat people comes up time and again, and it just hit me now that... man, if it's so cushy and easy, we should all go become cops.

    Personally I've pondered it, but will likely need at least another year at the gym before I could even pass the physical, so that's on the back burner for the time being.

    Because I find the notion revolting?

    I'm not interested in becoming a billy club for the state, thanks.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    Etc.

    A.) It is one of the most dangerous jobs
    B.) The pay's nowhere near as good as you seem to think
    C.) Extremely high stress
    D.) Forced overtime/odd hours are standard

    A) Its not in the top ten at the very least.
    Top 10 dangerous jobs
    The occupations with the highest fatality rates in 2006.
    Occupation Deaths per 100,000 workers
    Fishermen 141.7
    Pilots 87.8
    Loggers 82.3
    Structural iron and steel workers 61.0
    Refuse collectors 41.8
    Farmers and ranchers 37.1
    Power linemen 34.9
    Roofers 33.9
    Drivers 27.1
    Agricultural workers 21.7
    http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/07/pf/2006_most_dangerous_jobs/index.htm

    B)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Salary

    Being in the top third of wage-earners 25 or older seems pretty good for a job that does not require a college degree.

    Well, I'm really glad I dropped my childhood dream of being a Fisherman early on.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    Etc.

    A.) It is one of the most dangerous jobs
    B.) The pay's nowhere near as good as you seem to think
    C.) Extremely high stress
    D.) Forced overtime/odd hours are standard

    A) Its not in the top ten at the very least.
    Top 10 dangerous jobs
    The occupations with the highest fatality rates in 2006.
    Occupation Deaths per 100,000 workers
    Fishermen 141.7
    Pilots 87.8
    Loggers 82.3
    Structural iron and steel workers 61.0
    Refuse collectors 41.8
    Farmers and ranchers 37.1
    Power linemen 34.9
    Roofers 33.9
    Drivers 27.1
    Agricultural workers 21.7
    http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/07/pf/2006_most_dangerous_jobs/index.htm

    B)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Salary

    Being in the top third of wage-earners 25 or older seems pretty good for a job that does not require a college degree.

    Well, I'm really glad I dropped my childhood dream of being a Fisherman early on.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq1nBvClIMk

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    Taramoor wrote: »
    The couple of pages where we discussed how you can be dismissed as an applicant for being "Too smart" seemed telling to me.

    But if your uncle's a cop, you're in.

    The "too smart to be a cop" thing comes from one case, in New Haven, CT. The man's name was Robert Jordan and it took place back in the year 2000.

    Its hardly a nationwide policy by any means, no matter what some posters here think about the omnipotence of police unions.

    Forar, you asked a good question. Its just that its a lot easier for people to sit on the sidelines and bitch, to be honest.

    EDIT: Mccdermott, we were both in the infantry, or at least in the Army. Stop pretending like the cops are the only one who a code of silence when it comes to outsiders.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    EDIT: Mccdermott, we were both in the infantry, or at least in the Army. Stop pretending like the cops are the only one who a code of silence when it comes to outsiders.

    Oh, I wouldn't dream of it. But soldiers are rarely put in a position to abuse power over American citizens. Hell, they aren't really put into a position to abuse power over people in general all that often, on the whole.

    EDIT: Which is to say that most of the "culture of silence" I ran into in the Army involved cases of leadership abusing soldiers, not so much soldiers abusing non-soldiers.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    EDIT: Mccdermott, we were both in the infantry, or at least in the Army. Stop pretending like the cops are the only one who a code of silence when it comes to outsiders.

    Oh, I wouldn't dream of it. But soldiers are rarely put in a position to abuse power over American citizens. Hell, they aren't really put into a position to abuse power over people in general all that often, on the whole.

    EDIT: Which is to say that most of the "culture of silence" I ran into in the Army involved cases of leadership abusing soldiers, not so much soldiers abusing non-soldiers.

    I disagree with your second line, especially when I think of Abu Gharib and all the dumb as a box of rocks shitheads I saw in country who enjoyed nothing less than fucking with anyone and anything who did not have a machine gun.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    EDIT: Mccdermott, we were both in the infantry, or at least in the Army. Stop pretending like the cops are the only one who a code of silence when it comes to outsiders.

    Oh, I wouldn't dream of it. But soldiers are rarely put in a position to abuse power over American citizens. Hell, they aren't really put into a position to abuse power over people in general all that often, on the whole.

    EDIT: Which is to say that most of the "culture of silence" I ran into in the Army involved cases of leadership abusing soldiers, not so much soldiers abusing non-soldiers.

    I disagree with your second line, especially when I think of Abu Gharib and all the dumb as a box of rocks shitheads I saw in country who enjoyed nothing less than fucking with anyone and anything who did not have a machine gun.

    I always saw Abu Gharib as more an exception than the rule, and I was lucky enough to deploy with the National Guard...which is to say, a bunch of comparatively well-adjusted normal human beings who actually hold civilian jobs on a regular basis. We tend to be a little less proficient in our MOS's, but I think the tradeoff is worth it.

    I'd also say that part of the problem you see with soldiers in-country is that you're placing them in an environment where, for the most part, there really isn't any particularly functional rule of law. That, and you're placing them in an environment where a large portion of the people surrounding them actually want to kill them; unlike cops, who just think they do. This can go a long way towards explaining (though not excusing) their behavior.

    Basically, police officers operate in an environment where the rule of law is well established and the danger they face is pretty minimal, and act as though they're soldiers in a warzone. I'd also argue that despite this, cops are probably less likely to rat each other out for obvious abuses than soldiers.

    EDIT: And all of this is irrelevant anyway, since whether soldiers have a similar code of silence doesn't really affect how I expect the cops given day-to-day power over the citizenry to act.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    EDIT: Mccdermott, we were both in the infantry, or at least in the Army. Stop pretending like the cops are the only one who a code of silence when it comes to outsiders.

    Oh, I wouldn't dream of it. But soldiers are rarely put in a position to abuse power over American citizens. Hell, they aren't really put into a position to abuse power over people in general all that often, on the whole.

    EDIT: Which is to say that most of the "culture of silence" I ran into in the Army involved cases of leadership abusing soldiers, not so much soldiers abusing non-soldiers.

    I disagree with your second line, especially when I think of Abu Gharib and all the dumb as a box of rocks shitheads I saw in country who enjoyed nothing less than fucking with anyone and anything who did not have a machine gun.

    I always saw Abu Gharib as more an exception than the rule, and I was lucky enough to deploy with the National Guard...which is to say, a bunch of comparatively well-adjusted normal human beings who actually hold civilian jobs on a regular basis. We tend to be a little less proficient in our MOS's, but I think the tradeoff is worth it.

    I'd also say that part of the problem you see with soldiers in-country is that you're placing them in an environment where, for the most part, there really isn't any particularly functional rule of law. That, and you're placing them in an environment where a large portion of the people surrounding them actually want to kill them; unlike cops, who just think they do. This can go a long way towards explaining (though not excusing) their behavior.

    Basically, police officers operate in an environment where the rule of law is well established and the danger they face is pretty minimal, and act as though they're soldiers in a warzone. I'd also argue that despite this, cops are probably less likely to rat each other out for obvious abuses than soldiers.

    EDIT: And all of this is irrelevant anyway, since whether soldiers have a similar code of silence doesn't really affect how I expect the cops given day-to-day power over the citizenry to act.

    I would not say Abu Gharib was the exception, since I did do some time at those detainee processing facilities. Abu Gharib was just the largest and most obvious example. If you think Bagram, Mosul, Tal Afar, or any of those other places were any better, I've got land in Florida to sell you.

    I also take issue with your "oh its all in their heads" statement when it comes to cops believing that people want to kill them. Off the top of my head so far, we've had two cops killed in Florida during a car stop, four shotgunned to death in a coffee shop, and two more killed responding to a domestic. And those were just the publicized cases. So yeah, there are people who want to kill police officers. Just like soldiers aren't issued a wand that says "Good local" vs "suicide bomber" (which is why we get families machine gunned at checkpoints for not responding to hand signals), cops aren't issued wands that say "Friendly person" v "Wants to kill you". That's how you get people tazered because they think the cops are just playing around. "Don't taze me bro" comes to mind.

    You're doing mental gymnastics to justify why the group you belong to is justified in doing what it wants, while bashing cops for being in similiar situations because its the cool thing to do around here. Mistakes happen, sometimes fatal mistakes, and sometimes cops are dicks. But acting like cops are the only profession who do this and having a rage over it is silly. Cops, soldiers, even doctors have codes of silence when it comes to the profession in question.

    Like I said before, its a lot easier to sit on the sidelines and tut tut. I honestly wonder how many people would keep their liberal convictions here if they had to work a year on a street beat in a metro area.

    EDIT: And considering how many cops used to be soldiers, I really think you're doing magical handwaving on some level here. Where do you think they learned how to be dicks? When they were giving the likes of angelhedgie swirlies and wedgies after gym class? I've pointed out before that these guys need to be taken in hand and stop buying $200 worth of tac gear from 5.11 Tactical and treating every call like its Mosul circa 2004 when all they're responding to is domestics and speeders.

    legionofone on
Sign In or Register to comment.