Why We Fear Them, More and More

lapd-car-protect-serve-thumb-300x199-15298.jpg
 

Did you look at the year makes of the autos indicating when the photos were taken and how old they are? Some photo detective you'd make.
 

Shirley said:
When I clicked on the link in Imp's original post I got the red screen from my McAfee security. ​"Warning! Trouble ahead! Are you sure you want to go there? That means there is a virus, malware or something dreadful there.
Click to expand...

Shirley, I have Norton and they deem that site as safe.

All I can say is that we have many more good cops than bad cops out there, and many more good people than bad people. As long as that stays true, and it should, we'll be doing alright. The bad cops and the criminals need to be dealt with, that's for sure.
 
On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me to see this in the cities with the highest crime rates.
as I recall several suburbs outside of Chicago recently passed to gun laws against the Supreme Court ruling allowing private ownership. Their reason was " we can pass these because it makes us feel safer". Hope you feel safe
 
From the Chicago area.

Like Bloomberg said, of the NyPd , " he had the 5th largest army in the world"


are are they protecting and serving?

still doesn't change the Supreme Court ruling
 
"I believe the cop is now being investigated."

But, "what if....."? What if the cop is as truly unsavory as he seemed over a trivial matter, but more so when singled out for commission of an infraction? What if the cop is of a vengeant nature? That seems likely, given the nature of the initial incident. Enraged by the Facebook reveal, what might ensue? Worse yet, what if?..... fellow officers and perhaps officials support him in his vengeance?

We had a term often used for things getting "out of hand'....."Snowballing"... imp
 
"The only apparent way I can see for this to change is to figure out a way to police the police"

But how to "police" the police who police the lowest police? Seems to me, that belief in the Founding Father's definition of "Militia" as being the people at large, is supportive of "policing the police", is it not? imp
 
The reference to "protect" actually was a decision by SCOTUS which was worded, as best I can recall it: "....No Law Enforcement Agent or Agency in the United States is bound legally to provide protection to any one citizen".

The aim was to eliminate litigation against L.E. for failure to protect, on an individual basis, I think. Thus, an even newer "monkey-wrench" may be thrown in: Are Firefighters "Law Enforcement"? If you say "No", look at the warnings and limitations posted publicly regarding allowed number of patrons within publicly accessed places. Or, the "Fire Protection" requirements imposed upon such places. For example, the ownership of a restaurant not having the required fire protection devices over grills, may be held liable for such omission by the Fire Official. imp
 
imp said:
"The only apparent way I can see for this to change is to figure out a way to police the police"

But how to "police" the police who police the lowest police? Seems to me, that belief in the Founding Father's definition of "Militia" as being the people at large, is supportive of "policing the police", is it not? imp
Click to expand...

Certainly NOT with marauding bands of civilians, armed to the teeth, roaming the streets to police the police.. Whatever could go wrong?

The best way would be for body cams on every cop.. and a fine for conveniently turning them off. Should a police shooting happen, it should be reviewed by a Special Prosecutor.. not in any way connected with the jurisdiction of the accused cop.
 
Shalimar said:
Communism equals socialism? HaHaHaHaHaHa! My laugh for the day!
Click to expand...

Dont think Dreyfus mom said they were equal, just one had better doughnuts. I'm sure she had s lot more insight however. She was an official party member of one party and investigated by the FBI during the Vietnam protest era.

Differences are taught in any college level sociology or Econ class. No magic knowledge.
 
QuickSilver said:
Certainly NOT with marauding bands of civilians, armed to the teeth, roaming the streets to police the police.. Whatever could go wrong?

The best way would be for body cams on every cop.. and a fine for conveniently turning them off. Should a police shooting happen, it should be reviewed by a Special Prosecutor.. not in any way connected with the jurisdiction of the accused cop.
Click to expand...

Most places do have review committees made up of ordinary citizens, who turn over their findings to a committee.
You should join one.
 
yes the term is specific to legal liability, thus now the term to serve and protect means what ever anybody wants it to.

good thing those cars have to serve and protect painted on them, can you imagine how bad the crime would be if it wasn't
 
There is an old saying... A prosecutor can convince a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wants to. It also means he can get a obviously guilty cop not indicted. WHY? because a grand jury basically follows the prosecutor's instructions. Since Prosecutors depend on the testimony of police in cases they want to win, there is a built in conflict of interest when the prosecutor handles a police shooting. Therefore. a SPECIAL prosecutor, one who has no cases to try in that jurisdiction needs to bring Cop shootings to the Grand Jury. That is the only way to insure that the verdict be fair.
 
Yes there are a lot of old sayings and most of them were made by hams. The conflict of interests exists in all areas. Sometimes the existing administration just wants to throw somebody under the bus to reduce the stress. Special prosecutors are good if somebody wants to pay the bill. It's not a perfect world.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top