Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

a-hole Cops

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jay3
    replied
    Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
    The law says that unless a police officer has a reasonable suspicion you have committed, will commit, or are committing a crime he can't stop you.

    By setting up a checkpoint they violate the law and the constitution. Why not just say in order to make sure people aren't keeping sex slaves in basement, all people will have to submit to a once a yr home inspection. This will be to make sure there aren't dangerous conditions for kids, no sex slaves lol, no drug labs etc etc.

    No the reason we don't do that is because in America you only get stopped, or searched if the police have a reason to suspect you are guilty of a crime.

    Also these checkpoints do a lot more then just look for alcohol. Most of the arrests end up being for warrants. These checkpoints are about combing through the people to see what they are up to.
    Checkpoints are a different matter from searches in the home. Their legality depends on local laws and how they are conducted. They are controversial, but they are not flatly illegal as you declare. The difference is operating a licensed vehicle on a public road.

    I don't want them to overreach into our freedom any more than the next guy. But then, go figure -- I'm often told on the internet that I support dead children because I don't want the government to try and disarm the entire continent of North America. And the "no price is too high to pay if it saves one life" argument is trotted out.

    Bottom line -- whether checkpoints are done is an interesting policy issue. Heck, maybe we shouldn't require licenses to drive. But if there is an encounter, each of us should be peaceful and reasonable, and help the officer get through it and do his job. Anything else is just being unreasonable.

    Did we fight the Germans when they bombed Pearl Harbor just to have the freedom to crack our windows?

    Leave a comment:


  • BamaBronco16
    replied
    Originally posted by Quoydogs View Post
    Have you ever lived in a town like that. 1000 people. It's different and not uncommon for dogs to run around. That dogs tail was wagging when he shot him . The way he handled the owner should get him fired by its self. What he should have done in called Animal Control. Instead he decided to play GOD like most cops think they are and ended up killing a dog at a kids BIRTHDAY party .
    A town around here that only holds 1000 people is located out in the boondox outside of city limits. Dogs that get aggressive in those areas will get shot 99 out of 100 times.

    The dogs tail was wagging? Sounded like the dogs spent the majority of the time growling at him, and lounging at him.

    You say he should have called in animal control. Who's to say that they weren't called? He admitted himself that he was called in to a group of dogs being out.

    Originally posted by Irish Stout
    but sometimes dog's get out.
    The owner admitted to knowing that his dogs were out running around.


    I'm sadden that a dog had to die over that incident, but two things that are facts happened.

    1. The dogs were out running around not leashed with the owner knowing so.

    2. The officer that was called in to deal with dogs running loose was met with dogs lounging at him and getting aggressive. It doesn't matter if he yelled at them when he opened the door.


    In the end, a dog was killed because of it's stupid owner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quoydogs
    replied
    Originally posted by GreatBronco16 View Post
    Why is he an a-hole for protecting himself? I mean I hate seeing animals mis-treated and all, but these two dogs were being aggressive from what I could tell.

    Now at the same time, could this have been handled differently? I'm sure it could have. He could have tried to get the owner to come out and get the animals and whatnot.

    But regardless, that dog is dead because it's owner is stupid for letting his dogs run around unleashed.
    Have you ever lived in a town like that. 1000 people. It's different and not uncommon for dogs to run around. That dogs tail was wagging when he shot him . The way he handled the owner should get him fired by its self. What he should have done in called Animal Control. Instead he decided to play GOD like most cops think they are and ended up killing a dog at a kids BIRTHDAY party .

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish Stout
    replied
    Originally posted by GreatBronco16 View Post
    Why is he an a-hole for protecting himself? I mean I hate seeing animals mis-treated and all, but these two dogs were being aggressive from what I could tell.

    Now at the same time, could this have been handled differently? I'm sure it could have. He could have tried to get the owner to come out and get the animals and whatnot.

    But regardless, that dog is dead because it's owner is stupid for letting his dogs run around unleashed.
    Dogs didn't become aggressive until cop opened car door and yelled "GET!" Couldn't see it, but my guess is he kicked at them then too as he did later on camera. It initially looked like both dogs came up to the car all happy-tail wagging to see someone new.

    Owner is responsible for having two dogs running around area unleashed, but sometimes dog's get out. A dog is pretty good at sensing emotion and if the first interaction it has with this guy is him yelling and kicking at them, they'll react protectively for themselves, their home and their owners.

    I understand that as a cop who has been bit by a dog before this guy was leary. Good time to call animal control back-up… but it was a total set of unfortunate circumstances. I feel the worst for the dog.
    Last edited by Irish Stout; 03-05-2014, 12:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BamaBronco16
    replied
    Originally posted by Quoydogs View Post
    Can we please talk about this a-hole now . He has earned his due.
    Why is he an a-hole for protecting himself? I mean I hate seeing animals mis-treated and all, but these two dogs were being aggressive from what I could tell.

    Now at the same time, could this have been handled differently? I'm sure it could have. He could have tried to get the owner to come out and get the animals and whatnot.

    But regardless, that dog is dead because it's owner is stupid for letting his dogs run around unleashed.

    Leave a comment:


  • 55CrushEm
    replied
    Originally posted by gunns View Post
    Let me guess, you are white, middle class.
    Yup. White....upper middle class.

    Why? Is that something I should be ashamed of? Is that even relevant to the thread?

    Leave a comment:


  • Quoydogs
    replied
    Originally posted by DENVERDUI55 View Post
    Typical cop. Cops have way too much power for the little training they get.
    The dude shot a working dog, yelled at the owner for it being out. Then sited him, all the while it being at his sons Birthday party.
    Last edited by Quoydogs; 03-05-2014, 10:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DENVERDUI55
    replied
    Typical cop. Cops have way too much power for the little training they get.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quoydogs
    replied
    Originally posted by Quoydogs View Post
    Here is a Video of the biggest dick head piece of **** cop to walk the earth. This happened in a little town right outside of where I grew up. The chief said he was justified. I would like to see them both hung myself.

    Anyways WARNING A DOG GET SHOT IN THIS VIDEO AND THERE IS CUSSING.

    The way he treats the guy is just unbelievable.

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1O9GmUcp0Mo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>:
    Can we please talk about this asshole now . He has earned his due.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunns
    replied
    Originally posted by 55CrushEm View Post
    Coming from the mother of a military son, I'm surprised to hear you say this.

    And FWIW, I would argue that one becomes a TEACHER when they fail at everything else.

    "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
    I was stating what someone else stated, and that, as years go by, I'm beginning to believe. My son, whom you refer to, believes in the law, lives by the law, but has seen the police over step their boundaries, and the law,on many occasions. So have I, although I have never been arrested or even given a ticket. Being a law abiding citizen and protecting the rights of those citizens does not make you blind to obstructions of justice.

    That saying has many variations, Those who can, do. Those who can do more, teach. Those who can, do. Those who understand, teach. I don't know if there is a variation to the one the ex cop told me.

    Let me guess, you are white, middle class.

    Leave a comment:


  • ElwayMD
    replied
    Originally posted by 55CrushEm View Post
    Coming from the mother of a military son, I'm surprised to hear you say this.

    And FWIW, I would argue that one becomes a TEACHER when they fail at everything else.

    "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
    Yep that's exactly why I went into teaching. Clearly not because I wanted to help shape the future of our country and want to help children who do not have all the opportunities that other children have in life, but because I was a failure. That quote is probably one of the most idiotic ones that has ever come along. To be a good teacher you have to understand what you are teaching. Teaching is just like any other profession. You have to be up to date on new information, new techniques, and adapt with the times or you fall behind. I also bet you can name one teacher in your life that made a difference to you and helped shape who you are today.

    Leave a comment:


  • canadianbroncosfan
    replied
    Here's my take on it, however please keep in mind I come from a different country with different laws.

    1. A lot of what "supposedly" happens with the police search, false trigger, not finding drugs is based on what the poster, who has a bias, leads us to believe. None of the conversation surrounding this takes place on video, it's only written on the screen.

    2. Here at least, and it seems historically we have far more rights when it comes to unlawful search/seizure than you guys in the States do, being behind the wheel of an operating motor vehicle is enough for a cop to at least check your license. Was this portrayed accurately? Perhaps not with the whole what's your name, but at the end of the day I'm sure it's very similar that you have to produce a license if you're driving. Even if it's just long enough for the cop to ensure it's valid, they can do it.

    3. All these Freeman of the Land, you can't stop us assholes, wonder why they get treated like dicks, because you act like ones. That's why you get treated like ****. I'm all for defending your rights, but this was nothing more than a blatant attempt to try and show up the cops. Guess what, it never works and it never will.

    Leave a comment:


  • BABronco
    replied
    http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthr...=68799&page=16

    Several dozen stories/vidoes of cops being aholes.

    Leave a comment:


  • BABronco
    replied
    http://politicalblindspot.com/police...igh-iq-scores/

    The ruling made public in September of the same year, with the ruling judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven confirming that it was in fact the case that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor’s degree in literature, was denied an opportunity to even interview for a job with the New London Police Department, solely because of his high test scores.

    Judge Dorsey, however, ruled that Mr. Jordan that there was no protection offered to intelligent people from discriminatory hiring practices by individual police departments. Why? Because, Dorsey explained, it was proven that police departments held all to this same standard and thus rejected all applicants who scored high.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mogulseeker
    replied
    Originally posted by Coldcity76 View Post
    I think the negative public perception of police officers is well deserved. Too much abuse of power and I tend to think the municipal governments are to blame. The hiring standards for police officers are a joke. Been to Iraq and have PTSD? Great! We'll hire you for patrol in Oakland, Ca. This way you can police a demographic you know nothing about...

    Or here in Denver. Got a GED and no criminal record? Great! You're our boyscout! Now go police a city you never grew up in and wear that gun with pride! We don't need no stinking degree or life achievements! Forget the fact that you are a right winger with an ichy trigger! Or that you were never exposed to street life your GED should take care of that stuff!

    FYI, I worked with DPD closely once upon a time in security and I was disgusted with what I saw...

    I blame the vetting process to a large degree.
    None of the people who know anything about people anymore want to be cops.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X