Cop in America doing a bad job, again

Eboue said:
Come on now. I cant be 100% sure but literally all of the available evidence suggests they did.
Click to expand...

You can't fire or convict someone unless you're 100% sure. I said earlier the cop that kicked the guy needs firing, no doubt about that. Any cops that submitted false statements or can 100% obviously be caught turning a blind eye should be reprimanded. A demotion, suspension without pay and dismissal for a 2nd or 3rd incident on their HR record is more than sufficient.
 
You can but when they have a union is a high risk strategy. Hard to determine what percentage sure you are in that video TBH. It should be a clear cut line you're either sure or you're not sure.
 
Those officers were heading toward the man in the ground, with the officer who kicked him a few feet ahead, one officer was looking directly at the mans head. Saying "they didn't see it" is exactly why people think most police officers are corrupt pieces of shit who care more about their job than the people they're meant to be protecting. How many times are they going to miss obvious abuse before the blue wall wears thin?

If they saw a civilian doing that they'd unload their guns on him.
 
Last edited:
“[Nissen] agreed to take her home, and the allegation is that when he left the police department, he actually drove her to the home of the alleged perpetrator,” [Shelly Alvey, the commonwealth attorney for Bullitt County] told the news station.

From there, Nissen and the other officer, whose name has not been made public, took the woman to Wal-Mart, where they pooled their money to buy her a phone, Alvey told The Pioneer News, Bullitt County’s community newspaper.

Nissen is accused of then taking the woman to a hotel and paying for a room, at which point he demanded oral sex from her, the newspaper reported. He also told the woman it was time for her to move to another jurisdiction, Alvey said.
Click to expand...
https://boingboing.net/2018/05/09/kentucky-cop-drove-rape-victim.html
 


Police shoot unarmed man, make sure they all get the same story, lie and all walk free.

The officer who shot him was wearing a confederate flag. A symbol of white supremacy.
 
This guy needs to not be a cop anymore if his paranoid reaction is to pull his gun out instead of just his badge over a pack of Mentos.

 
Mike Schatner said:
You can't fire or convict someone unless you're 100% sure. I said earlier the cop that kicked the guy needs firing, no doubt about that. Any cops that submitted false statements or can 100% obviously be caught turning a blind eye should be reprimanded. A demotion, suspension without pay and dismissal for a 2nd or 3rd incident on their HR record is more than sufficient.
Click to expand...
Aye, but you can shoot someone because your 5% sure he might have a gun... right?
 
Mike Schatner said:
You can't fire or convict someone unless you're 100% sure. I said earlier the cop that kicked the guy needs firing, no doubt about that. Any cops that submitted false statements or can 100% obviously be caught turning a blind eye should be reprimanded. A demotion, suspension without pay and dismissal for a 2nd or 3rd incident on their HR record is more than sufficient.
Click to expand...
But you can shoot them dead for a lot less if you're a cop.
 
Abizzz said:
Aye, but you can shoot someone because your 5% sure he might have a gun... right?
Click to expand...
Depends who the "you" is and what the State and circumstances are. Justifying a shooting is based on the perceived threat. Faced with an intruder in your own home you really don't need much more of a threat that than. Out on the streets as a private citizen if you have a CWP you have to be in danger of your life or protecting someone else that is in mortal danger.

The same rules basically apply for cops. They have to feel that their life or someone's life is threatened. In heated situations being 5% sure someone has a gun might be enough for an officer to use deadly force. With around one million armed law enforcement officers in America dealing with literally millions of interactions a day so there are going to be a fair few controversial incidents.


Dave89 said:
But you can shoot them dead for a lot less if you're a cop.
Click to expand...

See above.
 
TheReligion said:
There's a number of issues in the US it seems. Everyone is constantly on edge.
Click to expand...
From the outside it seems like a huge amount of the population there live in fear, but then what is to be expected when anyone can walk around with a deadly weapon should they feel like it
 
Mike Schatner said:
Depends who the "you" is and what the State and circumstances are. Justifying a shooting is based on the perceived threat. Faced with an intruder in your own home you really don't need much more of a threat that than. Out on the streets as a private citizen if you have a CWP you have to be in danger of your life or protecting someone else that is in mortal danger.

The same rules basically apply for cops. They have to feel that their life or someone's life is threatened. In heated situations being 5% sure someone has a gun might be enough for an officer to use deadly force. With around one million armed law enforcement officers in America dealing with literally millions of interactions a day so there are going to be a fair few controversial incidents.




See above.
Click to expand...
You're arguing with a straight face that taking a job needs a higher burden of proof than taking a life.
 
Last edited:
Dave89 said:
You're arguing with a straight face that taking a job needs a higher burden of proof than taking a life.
Click to expand...


I am actually replying to someone that took a quote completely out of context and is now twisting my words. The original argument of firing officers without due process or evidence as literally zero to do with the argument you're now making. The original post was in reply to a poster that is extremely anti law enforcement suggesting people should be fired when he acknowledges he was 100% sure what happened, which is laughable at best.
 
Mike Schatner said:
Depends who the "you" is and what the State and circumstances are. Justifying a shooting is based on the perceived threat. Faced with an intruder in your own home you really don't need much more of a threat that than. Out on the streets as a private citizen if you have a CWP you have to be in danger of your life or protecting someone else that is in mortal danger.
Click to expand...
So that kid that got shot in his nanny's backyard would have been allowed to shoot and kill the intruders who eventually shot and killed him for being a threat? (Remember they hadn't announced themselves as cops)
Mike Schatner said:
The same rules basically apply for cops. They have to feel that their life or someone's life is threatened. In heated situations being 5% sure someone has a gun might be enough for an officer to use deadly force. With around one million armed law enforcement officers in America dealing with literally millions of interactions a day so there are going to be a fair few controversial incidents.
Click to expand...
America isn't the only country on earth with armed officers...
https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-shootings-statistics
Granted, the UK is the only country i'm aware of where armed officers aren't the norm, but still:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

I guess 1129 deaths (https://www.theroot.com/heres-how-many-people-police-killed-in-2017-1821706614) can be seen as a "fair few controversial incidents" but I hope those that do see it that way will at least accept that others perceive the same situation as a terribly unjust one that needs to be confronted.
 
Abizzz said:
So that kid that got shot in his nanny's backyard would have been allowed to shoot and kill the intruders who eventually shot and killed him for being a threat? (Remember they hadn't announced themselves as cops)
Click to expand...

Well, one he was outside not inside a house, two it was not his house, three he had a criminal record so couldn't legally own a gun, four he was trying avoid the police for several minutes prior to the confrontation....so no a completely different situation.


Abizzz said:
America isn't the only country on earth with armed officers...
https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-shootings-statistics
Granted, the UK is the only country i'm aware of where armed officers aren't the norm, but still:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

I guess 1129 deaths (https://www.theroot.com/heres-how-many-people-police-killed-in-2017-1821706614) can be seen as a "fair few controversial incidents" but I hope those that do see it that way will at least accept that others perceive the same situation as a terribly unjust one that needs to be confronted.
Click to expand...


Yes everyone knows America has more gun violence, more drug crime, more gang crime and more police shootings. Police shootings are still statistically an extremely rare occurrence in the context of the entire population. 1,000,000 officers, 365 days , lets say two interactions with the public per officer per day. So the 1,200 shootings by police officers represents 0.0000018% of all interactions between the police and the public.

Just rough numbers but it really highlights the difference between modern day social and mass media and reality for most US citizens. Cops might live on the edge a little but the vast majority of Americans go about their business just like others westerners.
 
Bad crime prevention pays apparently:

Parkland school resource officer decried as coward gets princely pension of $8,702 a month
The former school resource officer criticized for his response to the Parkland school massacre is receiving more than $8,700 a month in state pension, Florida Department of Management Services spokeswoman Nina Ashley said Wednesday.

There are no charges or circumstances that would affect Scot Peterson's pension, according to a March 28 department letter requesting local officials submit information pertaining to Peterson's retirement benefits. However, two investigations into the police response to the February 14 shooting remain ongoing.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/us/p...and-shooting-pension-scot-peterson/index.html


$104,000 a year pension...how much was he on when he was working.
 
Mike Schatner said:
Bad crime prevention pays apparently:

Parkland school resource officer decried as coward gets princely pension of $8,702 a month
The former school resource officer criticized for his response to the Parkland school massacre is receiving more than $8,700 a month in state pension, Florida Department of Management Services spokeswoman Nina Ashley said Wednesday.

There are no charges or circumstances that would affect Scot Peterson's pension, according to a March 28 department letter requesting local officials submit information pertaining to Peterson's retirement benefits. However, two investigations into the police response to the February 14 shooting remain ongoing.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/us/p...and-shooting-pension-scot-peterson/index.html


$104,000 a year pension...how much was he on when he was working.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable:

(From another article)

In 2016, his annual salary was more than $75,600, overtime pushing it to about $100,000. His pension is based on his years of service and the average of the five highest-paid years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.