4 ms·

Some cops are crooked so screw them all? This happens in every profession, not just law enforcement. Edit, to the poster below: There have been many cases wher

by watty 15y ago

Some cops are crooked so screw them all? This happens in every profession, not just law enforcement. Edit, to the poster below: There have been many cases where a man and women have sex and the woman later claims she was raped. Try to find a case of word vs. word (no other evidence) and the man was found not guilty. Now, try to find the opposite.

bsiemon 15y ago
Every profession does not grant you the ability to send people to jail based on your word.
- blendergasket 15y ago
  Or shoot people lying prostrate on the ground in the back and kill them.
  - sukuriant 15y ago
    They're not allowed to do that, in my knowledge.
    - jarek 15y ago
      Under which definition of "allowed"?
      - sukuriant 15y ago
        where allowed = "Get caught by an unaligned third party", probably
    - kragen 15y ago
      Your knowledge has not yet encompassed the Oscar Grant case.
potatolicious 15y ago
> "Some cops are crooked so screw them all?" Not all cops are crooked - but the Blue Code of Silence puts the culpability for the crooked cops' crimes squarely on the police force as a whole. If the police forces of the US even showed some inclination of willingness to police the actions of their own, then we wouldn't have most of these problems. Here in Seattle we've had an unprovoked shooting of a homeless man, to which the officer involved was allowed to resign gracefully, despite all parties agreeing that the was no provocation nor justification. Another officer body-slammed an innocent man (without warning, provocation, or identifying himself) into a wall so hard he is now in a vegetative state. This man remains on the force. Similarly, another officer was caught on store surveillance taking his rage out on a teenager in a convenience store, stomping on his face, after a failed drug bust next door. That officer remains on the force also. Not all cops do these things, but they are all guilty of covering up these acts and ensuring that, even if they do get out to the public, that no real consequences occur for the officers involved. I will have zero trust for any police force until they have proven their ability and willingness to police themselves. > "Try to find a case of word vs. word (no other evidence) and the man was found not guilty. Now, try to find the opposite" Huh, could've sworn I typed in "news.ycombinator.com" not "reddit.com/r/mensrights"
pvarangot 15y ago
I don't live in the USA, but in my country normally when a cop is being abusive of the authority granted to him he has a few layers of command above him that tolerate, and sometimes even encourage, such behaviour. I believe this is usually the norm and not an exception particular to my hometown.
rdtsc 15y ago
> Some cops are crooked so screw them all? Some cops are crooked so screw them all? However if most of them are crooked, it is pretty safe to informally say "screw them all" (as opposed to linking to scientific studies and then proclaiming that "screw 59.45% of them" or something like that). And btw, those that are engaged in cover-up of abuses of fellow cops are crooked just the ones engaging in abuse.

by watty 15y ago

bsiemon 15y ago

Every profession does not grant you the ability to send people to jail based on your word.

blendergasket 15y ago
Or shoot people lying prostrate on the ground in the back and kill them.
- sukuriant 15y ago
  They're not allowed to do that, in my knowledge.
  - jarek 15y ago
    Under which definition of "allowed"?
    - sukuriant 15y ago
      where allowed = "Get caught by an unaligned third party", probably
  - kragen 15y ago
    Your knowledge has not yet encompassed the Oscar Grant case.

potatolicious 15y ago

> "Some cops are crooked so screw them all?" Not all cops are crooked - but the Blue Code of Silence puts the culpability for the crooked cops' crimes squarely on the police force as a whole. If the police forces of the US even showed some inclination of willingness to police the actions of their own, then we wouldn't have most of these problems. Here in Seattle we've had an unprovoked shooting of a homeless man, to which the officer involved was allowed to resign gracefully, despite all parties agreeing that the was no provocation nor justification. Another officer body-slammed an innocent man (without warning, provocation, or identifying himself) into a wall so hard he is now in a vegetative state. This man remains on the force. Similarly, another officer was caught on store surveillance taking his rage out on a teenager in a convenience store, stomping on his face, after a failed drug bust next door. That officer remains on the force also. Not all cops do these things, but they are all guilty of covering up these acts and ensuring that, even if they do get out to the public, that no real consequences occur for the officers involved. I will have zero trust for any police force until they have proven their ability and willingness to police themselves. > "Try to find a case of word vs. word (no other evidence) and the man was found not guilty. Now, try to find the opposite" Huh, could've sworn I typed in "news.ycombinator.com" not "reddit.com/r/mensrights"

pvarangot 15y ago

I don't live in the USA, but in my country normally when a cop is being abusive of the authority granted to him he has a few layers of command above him that tolerate, and sometimes even encourage, such behaviour. I believe this is usually the norm and not an exception particular to my hometown.

rdtsc 15y ago

> Some cops are crooked so screw them all? Some cops are crooked so screw them all? However if most of them are crooked, it is pretty safe to informally say "screw them all" (as opposed to linking to scientific studies and then proclaiming that "screw 59.45% of them" or something like that). And btw, those that are engaged in cover-up of abuses of fellow cops are crooked just the ones engaging in abuse.