Joined
·
3,191 Posts
I couldnt look at the first one about the rape. However on this one. Are you saying you think the Cop was wrong?
Was he wrong for hitting the kid? Probably... at the very least he should have stayed up and just tried to brake and dodge the kid.Yes, because he laid the bike down thinking it would stop faster. Just like 90% of harley riders thinks
But if people bring up the cases of the officers being fired or put in prison then you would say that they are covering for the other ones that didnt get fired or put in prison.If "a great many LEO are exactly like (I'm) saying we need to be", then apparently what you need to do is figure out how to be more effective. Because what we out here consistently see is "an investigation" while the officer is put on "paid administrative leave" for a while, until it all dies down a bit, then he goes back to work.
If you're not really putting these guys off of the force, then you need to. If you are actually weeding out those bad guys, then you need to be letting us know that. Because the stories we see, that are typified by all the ones in this thread, pretty much never end up with the officers facing serious consequences for their actions.
That's a straight up consequence of the War on Drugs, in which YOU bought a war to OUR streets. A war that you cannot win, that has been completely unproductive at even reducing the use and availability of drugs, and that has done nothing but create a very lucrative black market for smugglers, while bringing the ordinary man violence and massive losses of rights.
PhilB
Ok I am good with taking a different approach. What should that be? Do we stop what we are doing? Stop going after drug dealers and such? It is possible that making more rehab places available for anyone that wants it would help some people. What about the ones that dont want to get off drugs? Education is another spot that might help. But then we already have lots of drug education so I'm not sure it is helping.Opposition to the War on Drugs is NOT based on the idea that we should let society slide into a drug-addled stupor. Opposition to the War on Drugs is based on the reality that it has been TOTALLY ineffective at reducing drug use or availability, and that it does far more damage to our society than good. It's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cough medicine. That's stupid.
NO ONE is proposing that we "stop the war on drugs and just allow the drugs to do whatever they do"; what we're saying is that we should take a different approach to the problem because this one ISN'T WORKING. Addiction is a medical problem, and needs to be approached that way if any real head way is to be made.
PhilB
I dont count on it being illegal to stop them. I do see it as an extra thing to keep them from trying drugs. It is one of the many ways that drugs can mess up your life so I think it does help. I might have tried drugs at some point in my life even if it was just weed had it not been illegal. Interesting enough though I did drink before I was 21 so for me it was no harder to drink than it was to purchase weed.Yes, that's what I'm saying. What you seem to keep failing to realize is that the fact that these drugs are illegal isn't stopping anyone. Legalizing these drugs will not increase use significantly, because everyone who wants to use them currently can easily do so.
Yes, I'd hope you "could raise (your) children in a way that they would never try drugs", whether the drugs were legal or not. If you're currently counting on the illegality of the drugs preventing your kids from trying anything, you're living in a fantasy land. I've met plenty of kids who smoke pot because it's *easier* for a kid to buy than alcohol or tobacco are.
PhilB
Doubt you could win a challenge on the citation unless you could prove that you where not doing the speed noted. The officer letting you by with a warning has nothing to do with you being in violation of the law or not. It was simply her choice. She changed her mind when you took the picture and there is nothing wrong with that.I'd like to throw a big ole eff you to the RC who stopped me yesterday.
I was doing 141kmh in a 100kmh zone. Now, I want to make this very clear:
I have no issue paying this fine.
while I do believe that current speed limits are absolutely 100% archaic, I do speed. a fuckton. everywhere. it's no big deal for me to do 150 in a 110 (that's a premo, twinned highway zone limit). And a guy does pay to play.
So that's fine. it's a 200 dollar ticket, I'll pay it.
My issue comes with the reason she fined me.
she took my license, went to the Tahoe they were in, and came back. I was in the middle of snapping a photo or two of the tahoe, lights aglare, when she was coming back. She ended up poking her head in and saying "are you taking photos of us?"
"Yes officer I am" (my camera flash is on regardless of light conditions on this phone, it's difficult to lie about that).
"Well, I was going to let you off since you haven't had a speeding ticket since 2010, but since my photograph can end up online, I'll be back with your citation"
Huh? excuse me?
So yeah, that was a real piss off and a half. she went back, filled out the ticket, smiled and said "have a nice day".
I smiled back and said "you too."
Currently looking into why a photograph would influence her decision to fine me. if it was unlawful to assign a fine based upon my decision to take a photograph, I'll be challenging the citation in court.
Yea the officer that left is part of the problem. Should have stayed and continued to try and fix it. Sure it wouldnt be easy but he knew that before he testified in the first place.It's no wonder there are so few good cops. Police departments are just as corrupt as every other government branch
This is What Happens to “Good Cops” Who Expose Corruption in their Departments | The Free Thought Project
Not sure if you knew this or not but people have gotten beat down for nothing more than wearing the other teams stuff. When it happens I am sure the public is all over the PD asking why they didnt prevent it. The PD then does what they did in this story and people want to say they are starting trouble. I would agree if the story said the cops verbaly instigated a fight or something but as far as I can tell from the story all they did was be at the game with the visiting teams gear on. Is there a better way to see what people are doing and if they are getting violent with the visiting fans? The idea isnt to stop people from doing stupid shit when the cops are around in uniform.... its to make people think twice before doing stupid shit when cops are not around.More police trying to create trouble out of thin air
Antagonist Fan or Undercover Cop? Police State Comes to the NFL | The Free Thought Project
You are right but I was not trying to pat anyone on the back. In fact the first story as I said the cop that quit is part of the problem as well so that is right up your alley.i am not sure either. the circle jerk thread is thattaway. ---->
I cant get the links to load but if the heading is at all true then everyone with any involvement should be charged. I can tell you if I was there it wouldnt have happened unless they shot me first.I hate my laptop...never another Sony, a company I used to love. it loads most websites in 'mobile' form.
anyways, same case from a more white-washed source: Former Pharr cop headed to trial for child rape charges : News : ValleyCentral.com
And that's probably the biggest problem with the police today. The relationship with the news companies and police departments impedes independence, which impedes objective information and justice.
I am sure hardhats have saved plenty of lives and have a good purpose. They wont protect you from everything but they do protect. To say they are useless is kinda like saying my helmet in the USMC was useless because a bullet would go right through it. Well yes almost all the time the bullet will go through it but there is a small chance that it will hit at just the right angle that the helmet will deflect it. Then on top of that it can protect against other dangers that again are rare but do happen. If this is your stand on hardhats then you must not wear a helmet on the bike either huh? The reason a helmet on a bike is useless is the same reasons you already said for hardhats.to begin:
I dunno. is it commonly known by LEOs in that jurisdiction that you don't need two brake lights, but rather at least one? or is that an unreasonable expectation?
we aren't talking about some vague ass traffic law that hasn't been relevant since the 30s here. Brake lights are kinda sorta important.
No. This is about enforcing the law when you do not understand it, and being allowed to do so. That is the end of it. It's not about the tail light. It's about stopping someone for breaking a law you (general) do not understand.
I am a chump to not fight it in court?
I miss a full day of work to fight it in court.
that's 200 bucks out of my pocket. Will the LEO pay my lost wage? Will the dumbass LEO who doesn't know the code of his own job reimburse me? Cause he just cost me that money. will the courts reimburse me? I lose less money to pay it.
ANY ticket less than 200 bucks, I just pay. Cause I lose at least half a day of work to go to the arraignment and say "not guilty your honor", and then I lose AT LEAST another half a day in court fighting against the charge. It has been 2 full days before. that's over 400 bucks outta my pocket.
They've priced me into submission.
A chump? Fuck that. I can do basic fucking math.
As for the hardhat example:
I have no need for the hardhat where overhead hazards are not present. fuck the law. it's a stupid fucking law and I fight it tooth and nail every chance I get. It is fucking dumb. you must be able to see that. if a 50 pound bundle of shingles comes tumbling down off a 2 storey roof, a hardhat ain't saving me. hell a 5 pound air nailer falls off that roof and a hardhat won't save me.
it's for looks. It's for looks and it's to make it so any idiot can do the job. who cares about where he puts his tools? everyone has their hardhat on. no worries if something falls. who cars if he leaves a sawzall on top of a 10' stepladder. You got your hardhat on. Don't teach common fucking sense. Teach safety.
"Here. put this condom on, even when you aren't getting laid, cause you might get laid soon".
So, when OH&S shows up, without fail, I say "cite the codebook on where it says I must have it on at all times".
and rather than show they have any shred of actual credibility in their job (which is still for lazy shits who want a pension and were bullied in school) they all do the same thing.
they do what most LEOs do.
they intimidate.
"I'll shut down this site! I'll stop you from working! I'll fine you!" oh man, they'd have you believe they could waltz in and take your house if they wanted. All because they cannot actually find, in that book that gives them all this "power", what I am allowed to request.
proof.
It (codebook of persecu-. . .damn there we go again. . . OH&S guidelines. . .) says "where overhead hazards are present". Sometimes it'll say "on any site where overhead hazards are present". I guess they just skip that last part. I have not yet read the revised 2015 version, but in the older ones, I couldn't find where it was written as "on all jobsites", rather than "where overhead hazards are present".
I mean, I have to memorize building code. But expecting an officer of the law to know their code is. . .it's just too much, I know. They're human and their life is tough and they were obviously forced to take this job so lets, lets cut em some slack and let em make it up as they go. After all, as long as their fabrication is reasonable, we can let it slide.
I'll be sure to tell the inspector that 24"OC studs are reasonable next time.
Overall, I'm done with this particular topic of discussion. I think it is ridiculous that an LEO can just say "well I was mistaken!" and still have what he did and found be submissable in court. That's. . . fucking incredible. I cannot build a piss poor house and say "I was mistaken about the building code!" and have that stand up.
You can see the ridiculousness there, right?