Re: 2 officers chrgd in beating homeless man to death
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And you missed the whole point where I said that just because it doesnt make the headlines, doesnt mean it doesnt happen. There are plenty of cops serving time. You dont hear about it, its not broadcasted, because thats for the safety of the convicted, and the security of whatever institution he is held at. Some are just to a high profile to not make it into the papers. Do cops get off easy? Yeah. I have my opinion on that, but its not relevant. Would my stating of opinion or facts make a diffrence? No, because too many minds have been made up from biased opinions already, and not too many will man up and accept any explination, regardless. You refer to good cops as "so called good apples". You dont even want to acknowledge that good cops exist.</div></div>
I absolutely acknowledge good cops exist. Would you call a cop who lied in testimony about the criminal conduct of another cop a 'good' cop? I said so-called because I was inferring that standing by and watching a colleague assault someone and then lying about it doesn't make you a good cop.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Your whole opinion is biased and prejudiced. How can anyone have a reasonable debate with someone who is so close minded? </div></div>
I'm biased because I think giving false testimony is wrong? Again, I'm was referring to the officers who gave false testimony, not referring to all cops as 'so-called good apples'. If I didn't have faith in there being good cops then what would be the point of any of this?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As to your loaded question about police chiefs and gun control...
I cant answer that, nor am I going to try. I say its a loaded question, because you know as well as I do that there is no clear cut answer that can be used to apply to all.</div></div>
My question was not loaded at all. It was clear, direct and singular in its focus.
I'm simply asking if any senior official has publicly supported the 2nd A against infringements. I don't understand your point of 'no clear cut answer' in response to this. What's not clear cut here?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I know what you "want" to hear. You want to hear that police departments, from the chief to the beat cops want an unarmed, obedient, and subservient society, because we all want to emulate the Nazi facists of the 1940's. </div></div>
Come on man, I'm not likening anyone to anything like that. This isn't cable news.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Is that what you want? We dont want armed citizens running rampant in the streets able to defend themselves from us inflicting our reign of law and order. How's that? Am I getting out what you want to hear? I had to get creative there, since thats usually the last line of though that really takes place. <span style="color: #FF0000"> In all the cities in this country, its possible there is one, or none at all</span>. </div></div>
So yo don't know of a single Chief of Police of a major metropolitan area that advocates the 2nd A? And this lack of support the 2nd A is somehow something I've used to rush to a biased conclusion?
My conclusion is simply there is not high-level support for it or resistance to infringement proposed by politicians. That and only that is my conclusion. It's not biased, it's based on the evidence, or in this case, lack of evidence to the contrary.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But you can draw your own petty conclusion because whether its fact or opinion, your mind has already been made up. You tell me to "put down the tired bullshit,'we dont make the laws'" because you once you accept that as a reality, you have to find a new face to direct your speculation at. Its just a simple route to take. I get it. </div></div>
No, I don't think you do. I don't want this to be my reality, it sucks. I lived in the UK where the rights of the citizen are a joke. The right to self-defense is a joke. The intrusion of the State into the private lives of people is horrific. I've also lived in CA where the imbalance between the rights of the citizen in practice and those outlined in the Constitution should be deemed illegal.
You think any of this makes me happy? You think I'm glad I have this to bitch about? Let me tell you, I'm not.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I will entertain some of the other spectators here. I know this is pointless because you have made your mind up, and what you "think" is the absolute truth, because, well it HAS to be. But, to everyone else, as someone with a little more perspective, there is layer upon layer, one maze after another of political agenda when it comes to making a law.
Like anywhere else, its money and power. You wanna know why chiefs "appear" to support a legislative decision, its because they are paid to. The people passing the law dont care what the opinion of the police is. But to gain support from the public, namely the special interest group that supports the law. The politicians put "photo-op cops" in positions of rank and authority, nothing but lap dogs and yes-men. If they do have an opposing opinion then they get to make a choice between a career and their opinion. Yes, they swore to serve and protect. Yes, they chose that position. Yes, they make the wrong decision, or at least one that appears selfish. Some do it for greed, some have their own agenda, its all for either personal gain, or just survival.The ones that have expressed their opinion can usually look forward to an early retirement of working in the plumbing section of Home Depot, or a mall security guard. </div></div>
THANK YOU for the most honest paragraphs on this topic I have read in a long time. Completely agree with 100% of what you have written. So the question is left begging. What can be done about it? When the choice of politician is limited to options that essentially yield the same result and the 'yes-men' are in the upper echelons of the police, what can be done?
I don't have a closed mind, I don't have pre-conceived notions here because I've never until now, been in a country where I even had these freedoms to lose. But here I am, a family man, in what I consider the best place in the world to be, and don't want this country to go down the crapper the way the UK has done, the way Australia has done and other countries before them. We, the Joe on the street, NEED guys like you who know what's wrong, to help us.
I will say however, I firmly believe in the collusion of the Unions and the politicians. Any set of 'en masse' voting yields the ability to have power brokered in return for favors and this in my mind works contrary to the interests of the citizen as well as those of the honest cop. Again, I don't have a solution, I don't know enough of the necessary inside details to arrive at one, BUT, my voicing my concern, my mistrust of this dynamic of union&politician should NOT brand me as some crazy "fukdapooleece" asshole.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I always hear about the "other side" making sneaky deals, tossing out campaign money, blah blah blah. Beat em at their own game then. I dont care if the tactics of the "other side" seem unappealing, or beneath what "my side" believes in. I have little problem with resorting to their levels and beating them at their own game. They wanna lie, bribe, cheat and steal, then fuck it, do the same. Thats politics. Its not clean, its not honest, and the side that wants it the most gets it. </div></div>
I don't really know what to make of this. You're suggesting citizens who want the cops to behave in a certain way bribe senior officials?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I dont know if any of you know this, since the "entities" (for lack of a better word) that are police share the same biological needs and requirements as other human beings, they too have to think about the needs of putting food on their plates, and since some of these "entities" reproduce and marry (we think you call those families), its quite likely they will make decisions that have the needs of their spouses and offspring in mind. I tried to use the coldest terms as possible so as not to make some members squeamish if I were to relate even the highest ranking police official to that of the rest of the human race. For some that is simply just unacceptable tiresome bullshit. </div></div>
Everyone has these needs and the Constitution of this country states everyone has a minimum set of God-given rights. Are you saying that to put food on the table it's ok to take those God-given rights away from others? Having a need does not justify any means.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Your right, we do like a public that doesnt question or criticize us. Because when dumb laws, wrapped in dumb laws, are created, it all gets pointed at us. We would rather the laws make sense, not appear to be intrusive, kept simple. But then we have a choice, if you can call it a choice, to enforce these stupid laws, or not and loose our jobs. For some, LE is all they have as a career, and nowadays, career changes arent looking very prosperous. </div></div>
Well at least we're getting somewhere now. Stupid laws, yes, they exist. But why cannot the police WITH citizens rally against them? Seriously, with the clout of the police organizations and the ability to detail why certain laws are wrong to the citizens THIS would be the best example of the police looking out for the interests of everyone. How can people not admire and support a police force that does this. One that not only enforces the laws, but protects from self-serving laws that politicians push against the interest of all? Politicians at the end of the day will do what gets the most votes. If the police endorsements were only given to those who didn't push or support dumb laws that would make a change.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Badmouthing the legislators, either in private or in public, is a sure way to getting started at finding a new career, or not going far from where your at.
I hate to tear down another wall, but police official, even the high ranking ones, have less rights than you do. They dont get to speak their mind. They dont have the choice to say how they feel. They do get to be told how or if they should address the public. They do get to be told that "this is the new rules, have your people enforce them." You may think its as simple as making a choice not to do it. But its not. You may not like these explinations, but tough shit, this is how it is.
But, since this is how it is, I guess we can just continue to draw our conclusions on what we "think" really goes on. </div></div>
I'm not naive, I don't live in a bubble of pixies and angel dust. But your 'tough shit this is how it is' is one of the elements of why 'shit' will only get worse until it can't get worse and then some 'shit' will happen and we'll all wonder were it started or why.
Regardless of anything else, I'm grateful for the rare candor in your post. At least you haven't said 'it's all your fault' and you admit there's corruption in the house.
![ThomasKelly.jpg](http://[url="http://media.reason.com/mc/mriggs/2011_07/ThomasKelly.jpg?h=244&w=400"]http://media.reason.com/mc/mriggs/2011_07/ThomasKelly.jpg?h=244&w=400[/url])
