This is why protesting works.. 2 cops charged with manslaughter

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Smurf, Sep 21, 2011.

  1. Xenu Is Lord Member

    With all respects that is not the case. It takes being able to fuzz the back sight while keeping the front sight clear and on target. This can be done often with a greater degree of accuracy with one eye closed. It is not the loess of his eye that I have issue with but the loss of his humanity.
  2. grebe Member

    Yeah it's not the fucked up eye but the impaired social judgment that often follows a traumatic brain injury that I would worry about in an armed patrol officer.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Anon1942 Member

    It already has 15 years jail time for filming cops in Il.
  4. Anonymous Member

    And the reason for such a law is?
    • Like Like x 1
  5. xenubarb Member

    Cops don't like being recorded while abusing color of authority, that's my guess.
    • Like Like x 4
  6. Anon_Jon Member

    I can't click "LIKE" enough. Fucking pigs.
  7. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  8. Cudgel Member

    A good part of the last few years I spent in law enforcement was investigating criminal complaints against police officers. In round numbers the results went something like this: 20% were substantiated with disciplinary action taken, 10% substantiated with prosecution for the offense occurring (and I had a 100% conviction rate), 5% were substantiated but with not enough evidence for either discipline or prosecution (these cases usually led to the officer being counseled about his/her actions) and 65% were unsubstantiated. That means my time was wasted investigating complaints from people trying to get out of whatever situation they put themselves into by trying to blame the officer(s) who responded to sort out the mess.

    Fucking civilians.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. TinyDancer Member

    I love you, Cudgel. Tell your wife I said that.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Cudgel Member

    Thanks. I will and she'll smile.

    I don't think you have to worry about Mrs. C complaining. She's tried giving me away before and gave up when she had no takers. (Actually, she gave up when I asked her what she would do if anyone ever tried to accept the offer...)

    • Like Like x 1
  11. Anon_Jon Member

    If police departments could manage to screen potential officers properly, we wouldn't have incidents like this:

    Anyone with a badge and a perceived/imagined position of power needs to understand that not all actions require a reaction and to show that they possess the ability to make a judgement. While most police officers do possess this ability and are genuinely good at their jobs and understand their roles in society, it is enough to the public at large that there are some that do not.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Cudgel Member

    Humans are fraught with frailty, emotionally, physically and mentally. Not every man of the cloth follows the precepts of his faith to the letter. So we should ban religion? (a rhetorical question which should be addressed elsewhere)

    Van Gogh was a manic depressive who cut off an ear, does that make his art any the less worthy of being looked at? Or then we should ban all artists because one might injure himself or another?

    Lewis Carroll liked to ohotograph little girls. Should we stop reading Alice and Looking Glass? Should we ban mathematicians from having imaginations?

    There are occasionally bad police officers: some actually intend to commit theor crimes, others do so inadvertently. For this we should ban all police?

    Good luck with the ensuing chaos.
    • Like Like x 3
  13. Anon_Jon Member

    I'm not demonizing the police. The point that you are missing is that every single potential police officer should undergo a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation, and pass, to even be allowed to apply. In my city, cops are given a personality test, a CVSA (which is only scientific when compared to the E-meter), and a urinalysis. It's not enough to justify trusting somebody with the lives and welfare of civilians.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Anonymous Member

    Also - cops protect cops. They will lie to save their buddies. That shit must stop.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Anon_Jon Member

    Good point - most professional organizations have a clear-cut code of ethics that it's members are supposed to abide by. In my own profession, whistle-blowing on ethics violations is expected.
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Cudgel Member

    Most agencies DO require such testing - it lessens their liability exposure. When I initially started in law enforcement I was subjected to three different psych evaluations by three different mental health professionals - all three had to agree I was fit before I could be hired. Then I was (depending on the agency) required to undergo psychological screening after any incident involving weapons discharge (mine or another officer's if I was on scene at the time).
    • Like Like x 3
  17. xenubarb Member

    What needs to happen is zero tolerance on abuse under color of authority. Fuck up, you're fired. No pension, no bullshit, no 30 days. You start court tomorrow for the beating you delivered today, and you do it as a civilian. The force should back away and distance from abusive cops, not protect them. That poor crazy guy, calling for his dad, all confused about why these assholes are pounding on diminishes everyone in the community, and allowing a police force to endorse this behavior tacitly by not throwing the bums to the street and ban them from ever working in LE again is a damn shame.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Diablo Member

    Where the hell do you live, Mayberry?

    Any police agency in California will psych test EVERY candidate being considered for employment. Not doing it would bring excessive lawsuits for bad hires.
  19. adhocrat Member

    Let's see how this works. We pay, through taxes, to have a person whom the laws don't apply to. This person, whom the laws don't apply to, is the man, the one who enforces the laws that we must obey, yet, mysteriously, he doesn't have to obey them.

    This is the system you want to reform? Any reform offered still has a man whom the laws don't apply to, who enforces the laws that don't apply to him, but do apply to us.

    Essentially, we pay to have someone who can do things that none of the rest of us are allowed to do. If I don't have the right to do it, I can't give that right to someone else, so what is the justification for people whom the laws don't apply to?

    As for the thin blue line, that is inherent in any situation that has 'us versus them' mentality. Police, military...they will protect their own against any attack, even from their own. And especialy those who pay to be protected. If we complain, the thin blue line forms to protect the criminal, not the victim.

    Think I'll go play my guitar. This is too weird to think about.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Anonymous Member

    I close both eyes before clenching the trigger.
  21. 3rdMan Member

    Thanks for supplying the insights, Cudgel.
  22. Anon_Jon Member

    That's a step in the right direction, but I still think that a bi-yearly evaluation is completely justified.
  23. Anon_Jon Member

    Hah, I wish I lived in Mayberry! A psych test is not the same as a comprehensive evaluation. Don't confuse the two.
  24. The Wrong Guy Member

    Fullerton officer accused in Kelly Thomas killing will keep pension -


    A Fullerton police officer and former LAPD officer accused in the death of a homeless man will not have his $40,000 annual disability pension from the city of Los Angeles reduced.

    The board responsible for overseeing fire and police pensions in Los Angeles voted Thursday against launching a review of Jay Cicinelli’s disability pension. The vote followed an emotional appeal by Cicinelli’s father, who decried what he called "lies and mistreatment" of his son by Los Angeles Police Department officials.

    Cicinelli lost an eye when he was shot while on duty as a rookie LAPD officer in 1996. When officials told him they no longer had a place in the department for a probationary officer with only one eye, Cicinelli went to court in an attempt to keep his job, but eventually accepted retirement with a disability pension of 70% of his salary.

    Despite his disability, Cicinelli was hired as an officer by the Fullerton Police Department, where he worked his way up to the rank of corporal, eventually earning $88,544 a year. Cicinelli’s case came to the attention of LAPD pension department staff over the summer when his name surfaced in news reports as one of six officers involved in a violent struggle that led to the death of a homeless man, Kelly Thomas, in Fullerton.

    Cicinelli faces charges of involuntary manslaughter and excessive use of force in the case and has been placed on unpaid leave by the Fullerton department. A second officer, Manuel Ramos, was charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. Four other officers involved in the case were not charged.

  25. xenubarb Member

    Tch. Pierced foreheads are all the rage in Socal.
  26. xenubarb Member

    Bitch shoulda stayed dead. Damn this zombie infestation!
  27. xenubarb Member

    inorite? So do I. So who needs two?
  28. xenubarb Member

    Would like this moar if they'd let me
  29. Xenu Is Lord Member

    I hate to say it, he should not loose his pension for this. While he and the officer need to pay for what they did, his pension is not connected to this incident. I am also tired of living in a revenge based world where we try and make the person suffer as much as we can. Also when and if the asshole gets out of prison he will need a income and I would rather the police pay him his pension, than he getting tax dollars on welfare.
    • Like Like x 2
  30. The Wrong Guy Member

  31. On the subject of filming cops, here in the UK, there is counter-terror legislation saying you can't take photos or record videos of police officers. If you do, they can demand to see them on the spot and have them deleted if they see it appropriate. Youtube has a number of videos with this happening in them.
  32. Smurf Member

    Not exactly...

    Freedom to photograph/film

    Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.
    Photography and Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000

    Officers have the power to stop and search a person who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist. The purpose of the stop and search is to discover whether that person has in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are a terrorist. Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether the images constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism.
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Diablo Member

    uk is gay
  34. Weird, I could have sworn I read somewhere on that photographing a police officer is illegal. But I can't seem to find it now. Hmm...
  35. Anonymous Member

    Check again when you're sober. :)
    • Like Like x 2
  36. Xenu Is Lord Member

    The UK is shit. I always love when people from the UK bash the US. The UK is the most surveilled country in the world and you can be arrested for what you say not just against the state but other persons as well. Case and point people have been charged for calling Scientology a cult there.

    Oh I forgot the great freedumb loving countries like the UK and the US keep invading other countries, killing 10's of thousands of people for their own good.
  37. 00anon00 Member

    I misread this. I thought you posted we killed "10's" of people and I was going to correct you but nm.
  38. Xenu Is Lord Member

    That is exactly what I meant. Correct yourself.
  39. 00anon00 Member


Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins