It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I'm so sick and tired of all this cop bashing!

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite


If there are so many good cops, why don't they stand up and do something about the bad ones? If they sit idly by, they are complicit.

You, along with many others, are not thinking rationally about the subject.

The evidence that there are so many good cops is the fact that police officers are involved in hundreds of thousands of calls, arrests and numerous other activities across the US DAILY. The vast majority of these are handled in an appropriate manner by average or good police.

The majority of police actions do not make the news. Especially if they are good actions which are above suspicion and without complaint. Try thinking about that.

Even out of the complaints that do make the news, you only hear one side of the story. Most of the complaints you hear about are found to be completely justified when reviewed and all facts are taken into consideration.

Then take into consideration the fact that individuals who are at fault MAKE THINGS UP to try to shift the blame away from him or her self. This is human nature. It is very rare to see someone accept blame for something without trying to mitigate it in some way.

With a media who is eager to tell a sob story or an underdog story, it is easy for people to very publicly shift blame from themselves to the police.

Ferguson is a very clear example of this. How many accounts, initially SCREAMED by the media, have been challenged once facts are starting to be released or leaked? Especially the testimony of one DORIAN JOHNSON which certain media outlets took as gospel. If DORIAN JOHNSON was worried about telling a truthful account and not worried about the ROBBERY he was just present for committed by MICHAEL BROWN and mitigating the consequences of that act, he would have been forward with ALL those facts. He had his chance to tell all the facts but CHOSE not to. You think the robbery just SLIPPED HIS MIND? You think DORIAN JOHNSON thought "no, this robbery thing that happened just before this had NOTHING to do with how BIG MIKE was acting or why this incident turned out the way it did?"

NOPE, he CHOSE not to bring up the robbery and he gambled that the ROBBERY would not be discovered or linked to what happened thereby attempting to mitigate the circumstances and paint himself and MICHAEL BROWN as the VICTIM.

Take this and realize it happens all the time when people make complaints about the police to the media. It is a form of trying to mitigate the consequences and judgement against them.
edit on 19-8-2014 by areyouserious2010 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2014 by areyouserious2010 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I fail to see how the dead man isn't a victim. He's dead. Are you suggesting it was suicide by cop?

The man died. He's a victim.


a reply to: areyouserious2010



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I also support the legalization of marijuana. But I am as critical of people who get stoned a lot as I am of people who get drunk a lot. Most marijuana users are functional contributors to society. Jailing them doesn't help anything. A huge amount of resources go into stopping something that cannot be stopped. The consensus now is for legalization. Most everyone has tried it, and we all know people who use it. I'm against it because continual use makes people listless and unmotivated; and it impairs mental functions. But it's time to end the War on Weed.
a reply to: TorqueyThePig



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish


I fail to see how the dead man isn't a victim. He's dead.

The term "victim," in my opinion, attributes an appraisal of his conduct before he was shot and the circumstances surrounding the shooting.

We do not have enough facts yet to make that appraisal.

In this case, the "victim" is not one who precipitated their own demise by placing a police officer in imminent threat for his own safety while said officer was attempting to arrest or detain said person for a crime.


Are you suggesting it was suicide by cop?

It is not suicide by cop every time an officer uses lethal force against someone. Sometimes, people take actions against an officer which place him or her in actual or perceived imminent threat for his or her own safety. At that point, if the officer kills the person it is not suicide. It is just losing the fight.


The man died. He's a victim.

There are thousands of cases where an officer is shot at and the officer returns fire and kills said person. Would you consider those people "victims."

Lets remove police from it entirely. There are many cases where citizens justifiably kill burglars, or others who attempt to invade their homes, with firearms. Are those criminals "victims?"



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Look at my name. I am not a nice person. That does not give anyone the right to kill me.

LEOs are held to a higher standard because of their so called training. This higher standard may be causing those that need treatment for their own mental health issues not to seek the treatment they need.

I do not believe a properly trained officer in good mental health would have killed that man. Poor choices were made that day. Only one man has to live with them.

The man that is alive is not the victim. The dead man is the victim.

How did this go into home invasion? How are people in their own home on the same level as trained LEOs in the community?! I can't make sense of that comparison to even attempt a response.


a reply to: areyouserious2010



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: PLAYERONE01

Wow, thanks for sharing those videos, I've never seen them or heard of this case before. That was well and truly heart breaking. There is nothing whatsoever that poor man could have done to stop that happening once they were all over him.

We have our fair share of aggressive dick head officers in the UK, I'm glad that the majority aren't armed. The Police here have strict protocols to follow even before they are allowed to pull out their weapons. Same goes for using tasers, but again not every officer carries one of those either.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish


Look at my name. I am not a nice person. That does not give anyone the right to kill me.

LEOs are held to a higher standard because of their so called training. This higher standard may be causing those that need treatment for their own mental health issues not to seek the treatment they need.

It is clear police are not executing people simply for not "being nice." It is clear because people are mean to the police hundreds of times every day and they are not executed.

When a person is not "being nice" and that person takes action to place the officer in imminent fear of serious physical injury or death, the officer may defend his or her self with deadly force.


I do not believe a properly trained officer in good mental health would have killed that man. Poor choices were made that day. Only one man has to live with them.

A properly trained officer who is 5-10 and 180lbs would have a very hard time subduing someone who is 6-04 300lbs and extremely agitated and violent. And apparently this is what the officer was dealing with at the time.

When someone is so large, and the fight is so one sided, they are now using their size as a weapon. At this point, a continuing assault which may result in the officer being seriously assaulted, losing consciousness or having his or her weapon taken could be justification to use deadly force.


The man that is alive is not the victim. The dead man is the victim.

How did this go into home invasion? How are people in their own home on the same level as trained LEOs in the community?! I can't make sense of that comparison to even attempt a response.

No, no. Answer the question. You are making the assertion that just because the guy is dead, he is a "victim."

If a regular person shoots and kills a criminal who is breaking into their home or otherwise invading their house, is the criminal a "victim?"

The criminal is dead. So by your standard, they should be considered the "victim."
edit on 19-8-2014 by areyouserious2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
What's clear is you're on a site bringing up conspiracy theories and yet you want to regurgitate "facts". The facts that I wasted two days of my life paying attention to that changed multiple times?

Here's a fact that won't change. This fact is clear. That man shouldn't be dead. There is no subjectivity to that fact.

I won't be swayed at bogged down by details. My child could and has taken down grown men. He's shorter than I and, I myself am 5'10". If you think so poorly of the LEOs that you don't think this situation could have ended with this man in jail then it seems you think he needs better training as well.

I wonder how many petite female LEOs would take exception to your reasoning as to why this man needed to die.

I see you like to sidetrack the issue. Unless the person breaks into a home that has a LEO there is no issue. We are talking about a man paid and trained to do his job. We are talking about a day a man woke up, put his uniform on and KNEW he was going to work a difficult job with lives depending on him. Your analogy means nothing to me.
a reply to: areyouserious2010


edit on 19-8-2014 by Iamthatbish because: predict a text totally winning



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish


What's clear is you're on a site bringing up conspiracy theories and yet you want to regurgitate "facts".

That is what the problem is. You don't want to pay attention to the facts. Since we are on a conspiracy website it could be argued that a few conspiracies are at play here. I don't buy into that aspect of it but the issue could be argued.

You did not argue that there is a conspiracy. You are arguing that the officer was not justified in the shooting. We do not have all the facts yet to make that determination. The facts are coming out that may discount the original story. Just because you don't like it does not change that fact.


I won't be swayed at bogged down by details.

This is also what the problem is. You will cite details that support your argument but when details are released that go against your argument, you can't be "bogged down" by them.


My child could and has taken down grown men. He's shorter than I and, I myself am 5'10".

A 6-04 300 lbs violent individual? I don't believe it, no one believes it, and you know its just not true. Please, just stop it.


If you think so poorly of the LEOs that you don't think this situation could have ended with this man in jail then it seems you think he needs better training as well.

It could, and should, have ended with Michael Brown in jail.

I do not know what happened. The facts are still coming to light.

If the account of the officer is true, Michael Brown was the one who made the decision not to allow the officer to take him to jail.


I wonder how many petite female LEOs would take exception to your reasoning as to why this man needed to die.

What you don't understand is that a petite female LEO who is 5-04 100 lbs has a different use-of-force scale then a male who is 5-10 220 lbs. It takes into account the physical comparison between the two individuals.

That works both ways. A 5-10 220 lbs officer would have a heck of a time justifying using deadly force against a an unarmed person who is 5-00 100 lbs.


I see you like to sidetrack the issue.

Fine, don't answer the question. That speaks volumes to everyone else who is reading this.

Another question, how come every law in every state, which governs police use of force, does not spell out that an officer cannot shoot an unarmed person? Every state has them. Your state does. Look it up and tell me if it specifically forbids and officer from shooting an unarmed person. It doesn't. Why? Because lawmakers chose not to restrict it that much. Why? Because they had the foresight to realize there are situations that may occur where it can be justified.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite


If there are so many good cops, why don't they stand up and do something about the bad ones? If they sit idly by, they are complicit.

You, along with many others, are not thinking rationally about the subject.

The evidence that there are so many good cops is the fact that police officers are involved in hundreds of thousands of calls, arrests and numerous other activities across the US DAILY. The vast majority of these are handled in an appropriate manner by average or good police.

The majority of police actions do not make the news. Especially if they are good actions which are above suspicion and without complaint. Try thinking about that.

Even out of the complaints that do make the news, you only hear one side of the story. Most of the complaints you hear about are found to be completely justified when reviewed and all facts are taken into consideration.

Then take into consideration the fact that individuals who are at fault MAKE THINGS UP to try to shift the blame away from him or her self. This is human nature. It is very rare to see someone accept blame for something without trying to mitigate it in some way.

With a media who is eager to tell a sob story or an underdog story, it is easy for people to very publicly shift blame from themselves to the police.

Ferguson is a very clear example of this. How many accounts, initially SCREAMED by the media, have been challenged once facts are starting to be released or leaked? Especially the testimony of one DORIAN JOHNSON which certain media outlets took as gospel. If DORIAN JOHNSON was worried about telling a truthful account and not worried about the ROBBERY he was just present for committed by MICHAEL BROWN and mitigating the consequences of that act, he would have been forward with ALL those facts. He had his chance to tell all the facts but CHOSE not to. You think the robbery just SLIPPED HIS MIND? You think DORIAN JOHNSON thought "no, this robbery thing that happened just before this had NOTHING to do with how BIG MIKE was acting or why this incident turned out the way it did?"

NOPE, he CHOSE not to bring up the robbery and he gambled that the ROBBERY would not be discovered or linked to what happened thereby attempting to mitigate the circumstances and paint himself and MICHAEL BROWN as the VICTIM.

Take this and realize it happens all the time when people make complaints about the police to the media. It is a form of trying to mitigate the consequences and judgement against them.


Yes, I am thinking quite rationally about this, thank you. My thoughts lead me to consider what would happen if I tried to fix the problem vs if cops tried to fix the problem. That's why it's up to them, because if I can be murdered by one of the dirty one's just for walking home - I want as little contact with them as possible.

Say what you want, but there is no excuse to murder a kid just because he stole and punched a cop.

Sorry, none. No excuse. None. I don';t care if he spat and screamed and hit and sht himself and abused and whatever else! There is no excuse for a cop experiencing that to then murder him.

Got it, yet? No excuse. None.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite


Say what you want, but there is no excuse to murder a kid just because he stole and punched a cop.

Stop trying to minimize what happened. You refer to a 6-04 300 lbs MAN as a "kid." You conveniently leave out the fact that there are reports saying the "kid" was going after the officer's gun while punching him in the police car. You conveniently leave out the reports that are coming out now that say the "kid" charged the officer, after the first altercation, which lead to the shooting.


Sorry, none. No excuse. None. I don';t care if he spat and screamed and hit and sht himself and abused and whatever else! There is no excuse for a cop experiencing that to then murder him.

Got it, yet? No excuse. None.


Ok, allow me to ask you the same question.

How come every law in every state, which governs police use of force, does not spell out that an officer cannot shoot an unarmed person? Every state has them. Your state does. Look it up and tell me if it specifically forbids an officer from shooting an unarmed person

It doesn't.

Why? Because lawmakers chose not to restrict it that much. Why? Because they had the foresight to realize there are situations that may occur where it can be justified.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: areyouserious2010

I guess it's just a matter of the quality of police, then. Terrible, by the looks of it.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Your focus and my focus don't match. That's why I don't address it. I see an underlying issue and would like it to not happen again.

Please stop telling me what I have had to go to my child's school and pick him up for 2x he took out an adult. And he's not even in h.s.

Keep telling me about laws that won't bring this man back to life. They mean nothing to me.

I've stated previously the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I wonder who wants the police to have immunity? I'm thinking the police. Right and wrong have nothing to do with legal and you know it.

I feel the need to type that the irreverent way people are speaking about a dead man that can't defend himself is awful. I made the decision to respect the loss of life and to speak out that we need to stop it.

What you don't understand is I'm stating facts that you can look up and can not be changed to suit someones needs. We've all witnessed the "facts" in this case change.

Here's another fact that we know. This one officer got out of his car to speak to two men. That doesn't seem smart. Should we now start blaming the officer for not calling backup?

I'm not into smear campaigns. By all means you go right ahead. I will remain firm in my stance that better training could have prevented this.

a reply to: areyouserious2010


edit on 19-8-2014 by Iamthatbish because: predict a text totally winning



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite


I guess it's just a matter of the quality of police, then. Terrible, by the looks of it.

And THAT is where you are wrong.

You choose to judge ALL police by the actions of this officer during this one incident without having all the facts.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish


Your focus and my focus don't match. That's why I don't address it. I see an underlying issue and would like it to not happen again.

None of us know what happened. So, how can you make sure that, which you don't know, doesn't happen again?


Please stop telling me what I have had to go to my child's school and pick him up for 2x he took out an adult. And he's not even in h.s.

Please stop telling me that your child can take on adults of all sizes with no problem and then pretend that is relevant to this situation.

School yard fights are much different then trying to arrest someone.

A 6-04 300 lbs violent person is much different than a 150 lbs non-violent teacher. Unless there are other adults in your child's school.


Keep telling me about laws that won't bring this man back to life. They mean nothing to me.

There you go again. If it doesn't fit your agenda dismiss it. That's not going to work.


I've stated previously the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I wonder who wants the police to have immunity? I'm thinking the police. Right and wrong have nothing to do with legal and you know it.

Oh, so it is the police that wrote and passed the state laws that govern police use of force? Nope, the state legislatures did.

Oh, so it is the police that sit on grand juries all across the nation and choose not to indict police officers if they are presented with an officer involved shooting? Nope, it is regular citizens that do that.

Oh, so it is the police that find an officer not guilty during trials when police are charged with police involved shootings? Nope, it is regular citizens that do that.

It appears more people than just the police want the police to have rules that govern police use of force and PROTECTION when officers follow those rules.


What you don't understand is I'm stating facts that you can look up and can not be changed to suit someones needs. We've all witnessed the "facts" in this case change.

Yes, and just because you don't like the most recent "facts" does not mean they are not valid.


Here's another fact that we know. This one officer got out of his car to speak to two men. That doesn't seem smart. Should we now start blaming the officer for not calling backup?

Are you saying, because the officer got out of his car to try to talk to two black men about walking in the street, he should have expected to be assaulted.

Are you saying any officer policing a black neighborhood should bring a couple other officers with him because he should expect to have problems.

Are you saying an officer should not perform his basic duty by pursuing and attempting to arrest dangerous criminals?

Your thinking is so backwards it is hard imagine what is going through your mind.


I'm not into smear campaigns. By all means you go right ahead. I will remain firm in my stance that better training could have prevented this.

Not true. You are all about smear campaigns as long as it is the police officer, or whoever the mob deems to be smeared, is being smeared. Get it straight.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite


I guess it's just a matter of the quality of police, then. Terrible, by the looks of it.

And THAT is where you are wrong.

You choose to judge ALL police by the actions of this officer during this one incident without having all the facts.


I'm not wrong. I'm not saying that you are, but I'm not wrong.

If you think that all these mysteriously silent 'good' cops shouldn't be held accountable for the bad ones, I'm at a loss.

It is their duty to us to weed out, remove and deal with the 'bad' ones.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: areyouserious2010

Read my signature, and try again.

Tanks in our streets, is domestic tranquility? I don't care if the guy was on drugs or not. That always is the catch all excuse when peaceful residents call bs on your sadistic tendencies. All while you violate our rights under color of law, and hide behind union lawyers.

Supporting anything like that, is treason. Period. No more excuses.

Clean up your act. Otherwise be known as accessories after the fact, not "good" cops. Prove the loyalty to your oath. Arrest the bad apples. Now.

I am done accepting this tyrannical garbage.
edit on 19-8-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite


If you think that all these mysteriously silent 'good' cops shouldn't be held accountable for the bad ones, I'm at a loss.

Like I said, the bad cops, by-in-large, conceal their misdeeds because any criminal knows, the more people that know about your crime the better chance of you being caught.

I will agree that good cops should come out against bad cops at all times.

The fact is, you don't know the extent to which good cops are covering for bad cops. You claim it is rampant. I can't understand how you can make that claim without evidence. I'm sure you can come up with evidence of a few cases but evidence of a few cases does not mean it is rampant.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: areyouserious2010

Lets make myself crystal clear. Just the fact there are bad cops, allowed to stay bad cops, means you have a problem. A big one. You are not policing your own. How can we ever trust you again?

Bad cops, should not be tolerated. Period. We should not be having this conversation to begin with.

Demand the arrest of them. No excuses.
edit on 19-8-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite


If you think that all these mysteriously silent 'good' cops shouldn't be held accountable for the bad ones, I'm at a loss.

Like I said, the bad cops, by-in-large, conceal their misdeeds because any criminal knows, the more people that know about your crime the better chance of you being caught.

I will agree that good cops should come out against bad cops at all times.

The fact is, you don't know the extent to which good cops are covering for bad cops. You claim it is rampant. I can't understand how you can make that claim without evidence. I'm sure you can come up with evidence of a few cases but evidence of a few cases does not mean it is rampant.


I think we can come to an agreement that 'bad' cops are more than just a little problem, though?




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join