• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The behaviour of US police officers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Armitage72 said:
It's like the time one of Pat Robertson's cohosts on "The 700 Club" claimed that you can kill someone with a single well-placed blow from a baton, so the fact that the police hit Rodney King so many times proved that they weren't seriously trying to hurt him.
Click to expand...

Proof that you can use words to support any position you want, no matter how ludicrous.
 
//slight argumentative hijack//

I've never been a fan of the "See!? Even So and So agrees/disagree!" argument. It's a trap question.

I argue that Bleens are better than Flarks.

If Hitler was pro-Bleen you go "Ah so you agree with Hitler!"

If Hitler was pro-Flark you go "Aha! Even Hitler knew that Flarks are better than Bleens!"

Robinson's good opinions are not anymore valid then his bad ones, because he's an idiot.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Robinson's good opinions are not anymore valid then his bad ones, because he's an idiot.
Click to expand...


I agree that he's an idiot. I was just referencing it in connection with the 10 supposedly non-life threatening gunshot wounds as another example of "killing someone is easy, so brutally inflicting life altering injuries proves you were going easy on them."
 
This is a weird one.

So a cop gets called (maybe, more on that in a moment) to a diner just outside Pittsburg. Once in there he immediately, apparently without a prompting, went and started questioning the only black patron in the diner.

Most of the encounter is (sadly) standard run of the mill cop on an ego trip nonsense. Demand to see ID even though the person has no obligation to do so, the cop quickly "getting tired of the person's attitude," the cop reminding the guy who's "in charge here" despite nobody asking or caring. Normal stuff. The cop eventually goes outside to run a quick background check on the guy and apparently when nothing comes from this he gives up and leaves. I mean nobody got shot so it's not the worst cop interaction but still.

Here's where it gets weird and (somewhat) noteworthy to me.

1. Watch the video. Am I crazy or is that cop actually, legit drunk? I mean that in a literal sense. Like he really does come across as medically and legally inebriated.

2. Okay so the cop claimed he got called to the diner because "somebody" reported a smell of marijuana but.. he only said that later. When he firsts starts harassing the guy its this weird tangent about the dude's service dog. He only brings up the "call" later. And the diner said that had made no call and had had no issue with the patron in question. I get a feeling mythical invisible people who don't exist are going to be calling cops a LOT in the future when cops are put on the spot and asked why they are even bothering this person at all.

The officer in question has been taken off duty "pending investigation" and was put on paid leave in 2017 after pleading guilty to harassing a 14 year old boy.

https://www.newsweek.com/white-cop-accused-racially-profiling-black-man-diner-viral-video-1586546
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
This is a weird one.

So a cop gets called (maybe, more on that in a moment) to a diner just outside Pittsburg. Once in there he immediately, apparently without a prompting, went and started questioning the only black patron in the diner.

Most of the encounter is (sadly) standard run of the mill cop on an ego trip nonsense. Demand to see ID even though the person has no obligation to do so, the cop quickly "getting tired of the person's attitude," the cop reminding the guy who's "in charge here" despite nobody asking or caring. Normal stuff. The cop eventually goes outside to run a quick background check on the guy and apparently when nothing comes from this he gives up and leaves. I mean nobody got shot so it's not the worst cop interaction but still.

Here's where it gets weird and (somewhat) noteworthy to me.

1. Watch the video. Am I crazy or is that cop actually, legit drunk? I mean that in a literal sense. Like he really does come across as medically and legally inebriated.
Click to expand...

Why would that be shocking, I mean being found behind the wheel of their cop car passed out drunk on duty didn't get

https://wgntv.com/news/no-charges-to-be-filed-against-officer-recorded-drunk-and-passed-out-behind-wheel-of-cruiser-tmw/#:~:text=DENVER%2C%20Colo.,foot%20was%20on%20the%20brake.

"During the internal affairs investigation, it was learned that Meier had a blood alcohol reading of .430, which is five times the legal limit. That test was done by hospital staff and is not admissible in court."

Cops driving drunk is just not something cops will take seriously.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Why would that be shocking, I mean being found behind the wheel of their cop car passed out drunk on duty didn't get

https://wgntv.com/news/no-charges-to-be-filed-against-officer-recorded-drunk-and-passed-out-behind-wheel-of-cruiser-tmw/#:~:text=DENVER%2C%20Colo.,foot%20was%20on%20the%20brake.

"During the internal affairs investigation, it was learned that Meier had a blood alcohol reading of .430, which is five times the legal limit. That test was done by hospital staff and is not admissible in court."
Cops driving drunk is just not something cops will take seriously.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt it wasn't admissible, but I do doubt that was the reason.

They would have needed a warrant before they knew the result and chances are the cops weren't interested in prosecuting their buddy, or any number of other flaws with the prosecution.

We draw blood alcohols for the cops all the time. There are chain of custody procedures but they aren't difficult. To get a warrant chances are the cops would have had to testify the guy was driving. If he wasn't then it probably wasn't illegal. A personnel issue sure, but not a DUI.

From the article:
Had the police department requested the blood test, that record could have been subpoenaed.

“We did it wrong,” said interim Chief Vanessa Wilson, who was not interim chief at the time of the incident.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't doubt it wasn't admissible, but I do doubt that was the reason.

They would have needed a warrant before they knew the result and chances are the cops weren't interested in prosecuting their buddy, or any number of other flaws with the prosecution.

We draw blood alcohols for the cops all the time. There are chain of custody procedures but they aren't difficult. To get a warrant chances are the cops would have had to testify the guy was driving. If he wasn't then it probably wasn't illegal. A personnel issue sure, but not a DUI.

From the article:
Click to expand...

In the UK there is an equivalent charge to DUI of being in control of a vehicle while drunk.
It attracts the same sentence DUI.
If you are in the car and have the keys then you are charged.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay so the cop claimed he got called to the diner because "somebody" reported a smell of marijuana but.. he only said that later. When he firsts starts harassing the guy its this weird tangent about the dude's service dog. He only brings up the "call" later. And the diner said that had made no call and had had no issue with the patron in question. I get a feeling mythical invisible people who don't exist are going to be calling cops a LOT in the future when cops are put on the spot and asked why they are even bothering this person at all.
Click to expand...
The most obvious question about this excuse is why would any cop investigate a "marijuana smell" in Pennsylvania, where medical marijuana is legal? It's a pointless exercise unless the goal is harassment.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't doubt it wasn't admissible, but I do doubt that was the reason.

They would have needed a warrant before they knew the result and chances are the cops weren't interested in prosecuting their buddy, or any number of other flaws with the prosecution.

We draw blood alcohols for the cops all the time. There are chain of custody procedures but they aren't difficult. To get a warrant chances are the cops would have had to testify the guy was driving. If he wasn't then it probably wasn't illegal. A personnel issue sure, but not a DUI.

From the article:
Click to expand...

He was behind the wheel of the car, that is enough for any non cop to get busted for drunk driving.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
In the UK there is an equivalent charge to DUI of being in control of a vehicle while drunk.
It attracts the same sentence DUI.
If you are in the car and have the keys then you are charged.
Click to expand...

In the US that only applies to people the cops want to give a DUI to.

(Not actually sure if all states have that law, but it certainly is the law in my state. You can get a DUI for sleeping in a car while drunk if you have the keys in your pocket.)
 
There's been a little push back on the DUI issue here in Vermont, where there have been a couple of instances of cops arresting people on their own property. It gets complicated, of course, by whether or not they saw the person driving drunk before entering the driveway, but cops, as we know, even in relatively nice places like Vermont, cannot be entirely counted on to be truthful.
 
I honestly can't be bothered going through the pages, but has anyone mentioned the woman with dementia who the cops tackled, broke her arm and threw in a cell and then laughed at.

Can post a link if no.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
And later watched the video with colleagues laughing at hearing the shoulder pop?

Unless you are describing a different case - which sadly is not implausible, then yes.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/color...-karen-garner-woman-with-dementia-video-shows
Click to expand...

Yeah same one.

Not the nicest thing to see when your mother in law on the other side of the world is living in a place with dementia and hasn't been able to be next to her husband for a year over covid, while silmultaneiously forgetting he exist.

I hope they at least get turfed. These threads seem to tend to show not much else.
 
Just looking at all these cases again. Does Biden have the power to demand the dodgy states and city departments to sort their **** out or get taken over leader wise by veto of the prez'?, or is it a federal can't mess with state elected thing?

I am guessing he could if he actually wanted to, but obviously probably wrong.
 
cullennz said:
Just looking at all these cases again. Does Biden have the power to demand the dodgy states and city departments to sort their **** out or get taken over leader wise by veto of the prez'?, or is it a federal can't mess with state elected thing?

I am guessing he could if he actually wanted to, but obviously probably wrong.
Click to expand...

In the past, the DOJ might litigate or threaten to litigate a police department that is engaged in the routine violation of civil rights. Often this ends with the department entering a consent decree and agreeing to certain conditions to clean up their act, placing these departments under more direct federal scrutiny.

The Biden DOJ has recently opened investigations into the Minneapolis PD and the Louisville PD. One imagines a consent decree with the DOJ could be in their future.
 
Last edited:
A lawsuit has just been filed against District Attorney Ray Crouch,
@dicksonpolice , and many @TBInvestigation officials regarding their malicious prosecution and false arrest of Joshua Garton for posting a meme that offended law enforcement:
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/Scot_Blog/status/1387098556880850947

The man was arrested after posting an anti-police meme on social media.

Rather than just being the normal idiocy of local police, apparently the TBI and the local DA both were also involved in this joint task force "investigation" that lead up to the blatantly illegal arrest.


Internal correspondence reveals that the police involved knew what they were doing was unconstitutional:

both the Defendants’ actual knowledge that “we violated [Mr.
Garton’s] 1st amendment rights” and the Defendants’ actual knowledge that Mr. Garton
“has a right to post.” See Collective Exhibit #1, pp. 104–05.1 Even so, because Mr.
Garton had disrespected law enforcement, the Defendants vowed that: “[t]hat doesn’t
mean there are no consequences.”
Click to expand...

https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Complaint-of-Joshua-Garton-and-Exhibits-1-4.pdf

https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/constitutionally-illiterate-tennessee-authorities-arrest-man-for-posting-an-anti-police-meme-on-social-media/

Contempt of cop remains the most serious crime you can commit in this country.
 
Last edited:
Video Shows Police Kneeled On Mario Gonzalez’s Back For 5 Minutes Before He Died
Click to expand...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/video-mario-gonzalez-death-police-alameda-california_n_608897cfe4b046202700c835

Cops kneeled on this man's back for over 5 minutes until he went unresponsive and had no pulse. He later died at the hospital. Body cam footage contradicts statement given by police in their reports.

The tactics used by Chauvin to murder Floyd were only a more extreme version of the very common police use of extended, face down restraints that place people in extreme danger. Police have known for decades about the dangers of this practice and continue to use them, with disastrous consequences to the public.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom