What's Wrong With American Cops?
Discussion
I've not seen the dashcam footage, but I bet his hand hurt after that:
http://time.com/4121418/detroit-ex-cop-found-guilt...
http://time.com/4121418/detroit-ex-cop-found-guilt...
Officer Jason Van Dyke charged with murder of Laquan Mcdonald and remanded. Its been over a year since the 17 year old was shot but charges have only been filed a day before the video of the killing is to be released as ordered by a judge.
Officer Van Dyke has been on paid desk duty since the shooting and the city fought hard to make sure the video wasnt released. The city made a $5m payment to Laquan's family without them even filing a lawsuit.
What is it about police that always makes them want to protect rotten apples. I can't think of any other line of work where the worst of the worst are given this much protection.
Officer Van Dyke has been on paid desk duty since the shooting and the city fought hard to make sure the video wasnt released. The city made a $5m payment to Laquan's family without them even filing a lawsuit.
What is it about police that always makes them want to protect rotten apples. I can't think of any other line of work where the worst of the worst are given this much protection.
Edited by Eclassy on Tuesday 24th November 23:17
What is it about police that always makes them want to protect rotten apples. I cant think of any other line of work where the worst of the worst are given this much protection.
[/quote]
I know I shouldn't feed the troll but, eclassy Google father Brendan Smyth, if, after reading about him and those like him you still think 'the Police' are the worst for covering stuff up then your moral compass is waaaay off.
https://youtu.be/Ow27I3yTFKc
They have deliberately removed audio of the bullets hitting. 1st shot spins him around. Second shot probably takes him to the ground. 3 to 4 second pause, then 14 more shots including a head shot while he laid on the ground.
The police have had this video for 400 days. This officer remained on the force and got paid. The video is explicit so I cant understand why investigation took 400 days. Only decides to charge when they judge ordered video released.
Police also deleted footage from a nearby Burger King CCTV which showed the shooting.
https://youtu.be/cWvV9HJUB74
They have deliberately removed audio of the bullets hitting. 1st shot spins him around. Second shot probably takes him to the ground. 3 to 4 second pause, then 14 more shots including a head shot while he laid on the ground.
The police have had this video for 400 days. This officer remained on the force and got paid. The video is explicit so I cant understand why investigation took 400 days. Only decides to charge when they judge ordered video released.
Police also deleted footage from a nearby Burger King CCTV which showed the shooting.
https://youtu.be/cWvV9HJUB74
Can't disagree with most of the above. Looks like murder to me.
They could learn a lot from the way we scrutinise and investigate shootings, although the volume of police shootings over there is what, over 500-1000x the amount we have, so that would require a rather large independent investigatory body. It's hard to calculate since, and this always amazes me, there is no formal way of recording how many police shootings there are.
They could learn a lot from the way we scrutinise and investigate shootings, although the volume of police shootings over there is what, over 500-1000x the amount we have, so that would require a rather large independent investigatory body. It's hard to calculate since, and this always amazes me, there is no formal way of recording how many police shootings there are.
Eclassy said:
What is it about police that always makes them want to protect rotten apples. I can't think of any other line of work where the worst of the worst are given this much protection.
I know I shouldn't but:Edited by Eclassy on Tuesday 24th November 23:17
I've been involved in police discipline cases in most roles, and the norm has been that police have been the main prosecution witness. Often, although not the majority, the complainant has been a police officer.
In one case, judges, defence briefs and independent legal advice was that there was no case to answer for the six officers charged with various offences over the shooting of an unarmed suspect. Yet the police continued to prosecute and put pressure on the CPS to do so (and they did to their shame) until the decision was taken out of their hands by the trial judge who binned the case before pleading.
A senior officer, with umpteen commendations, a real grafter, and a really good bloke, was arrested after walking out of Tesco with one item not paid for out of dozens. The item was left in the trolley with no attempt to hide.
I saw the full disclosure: just the actus. For anyone other than a police officer the job would have been binned: no case to answer. There would not have even been an arrest. But because he was a police officer the decision was delayed for weeks. It was known that the chap was under stress, and had been treated for PTSD, with loss of memory at times. He hanged himself as he was unable to cope with the additional pressure.
So before you come out with such rubbish, why not ask? You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. I'm sorry for whatever turned you from a normal person into a troll, but I am sorrier for the rest of us.
Just leave the sensible people alone and play among or with yourself.
Derek Smith said:
Eclassy said:
What is it about police that always makes them want to protect rotten apples. I can't think of any other line of work where the worst of the worst are given this much protection.
I know I shouldn't but:Edited by Eclassy on Tuesday 24th November 23:17
I've been involved in police discipline cases in most roles, and the norm has been that police have been the main prosecution witness. Often, although not the majority, the complainant has been a police officer.
In one case, judges, defence briefs and independent legal advice was that there was no case to answer for the six officers charged with various offences over the shooting of an unarmed suspect. Yet the police continued to prosecute and put pressure on the CPS to do so (and they did to their shame) until the decision was taken out of their hands by the trial judge who binned the case before pleading.
A senior officer, with umpteen commendations, a real grafter, and a really good bloke, was arrested after walking out of Tesco with one item not paid for out of dozens. The item was left in the trolley with no attempt to hide.
I saw the full disclosure: just the actus. For anyone other than a police officer the job would have been binned: no case to answer. There would not have even been an arrest. But because he was a police officer the decision was delayed for weeks. It was known that the chap was under stress, and had been treated for PTSD, with loss of memory at times. He hanged himself as he was unable to cope with the additional pressure.
So before you come out with such rubbish, why not ask? You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. I'm sorry for whatever turned you from a normal person into a troll, but I am sorrier for the rest of us.
Just leave the sensible people alone and play among or with yourself.
Eclassy's not being fair in his blanket assertion that 'police' (what, all of them?) want to protect rotten apples, but it's rather disturbing that in the US cases under discussion here, only video evidence seems to be bringing about the realisation that the policing is rather more brutal than the population was led to believe (and a lot more so than we experience in the UK), and that any expectation that brother/sister officers will of their own volition ensure that transgressors come to justice is more than a little naïve.
longblackcoat said:
Derek, I normally like your posts, but I think your case is rather different to the US shootings, is it not?
Eclassy's not being fair in his blanket assertion that 'police' (what, all of them?) want to protect rotten apples, but it's rather disturbing that in the US cases under discussion here, only video evidence seems to be bringing about the realisation that the policing is rather more brutal than the population was led to believe (and a lot more so than we experience in the UK), and that any expectation that brother/sister officers will of their own volition ensure that transgressors come to justice is more than a little naïve.
Point taken that there are differences between the policing systems in the UK and the USA. Indeed, there are major differences between the different levels of recruitment and training in the various USA police forces and to blanket them all as trigger happy is, perhaps, wrong.Eclassy's not being fair in his blanket assertion that 'police' (what, all of them?) want to protect rotten apples, but it's rather disturbing that in the US cases under discussion here, only video evidence seems to be bringing about the realisation that the policing is rather more brutal than the population was led to believe (and a lot more so than we experience in the UK), and that any expectation that brother/sister officers will of their own volition ensure that transgressors come to justice is more than a little naïve.
However, I read the post I quoted as a generalisation against all police. I would refer anyone to previous posts of this person to support that contention.
Most of the complaints in my force I was involved in, as victim - sorry, defendant, witness, prosecutor, friend and defence had police officers as witness for the prosecution. I'd say all as I can't remember any that didn't, but my memory might be wrong.
A substantial number of complaints, possibly most, have police as originators. I know incidents of police officers being blind to the behaviour of their colleagues, but never in a serious case, and only in cases (2) brought by solicitors to lower the chances of prosecution, and in one case when the complainant was a nasty bit of work who would follow police officers to their home if they arrested him.
Even on that last one, D&C approached me as their inspector to how say upset they were. They admonished the PC without any evidence.
I have experience in cases against the police where lower levels of evidence are required before a decision to prosecute.
My sole discipline case was totally without evidence and there was no enquiry as an ACC was the author. I was found guilty but the first I knew of it was when I was ordered to see the DCC for punishment. What was most irritating was that the person at fault was the ACC complainant who told me that the only reason he put me on report was to take pressure off him from the press.
So any suggestion of complicity to defend officers does generate a bit of ire in me.
Eclassy said:
Those 'not serious' to you may be a great deal to the person on the receiving end of these 'not serious' incidents you say police are happy to turn a blind eye to.
Of the two cases brought by solicitors: one was a lie, as admitted by the prisoner at a later date. There had been no assault, although there had been heated discussion.The other I would bet was a lie but even then amounted to nothing more than over-reacting to a threat to punch the officer. The suggestion was that the officer used an approved hold to negate any threat, the argument being that the officer held him face down on the bonnet of his car after he was handcuffed.
The other one was, as I said, a regular who suggested he'd been verbally abused. Given that the officer's partner had been followed home by this piece of detritus, I would assume that she might well have given him a piece of her mind.
He was a low-level drug dealer and was ambitious. He tried to muscle in on the club scene one weekend and we never saw him again. He ran away up north.
Whether or not these are serious incidents in the minds of the offenders, my point remains: you were wrong.
In my personal case, money was taken from my address and not recorded on property sheet left. On release and without charge, all my property was returned but money was nowhere to be found and no record of it. It Took a letter to my MP and commissioner of police to get my money back 3 months later.
It wad obvious it was a dirty cop as they couldnt giveban explanation as to why in an envelope containing dollars and pounds, only the pounds were taken. I would have expected everything to be taken and recorded as suspected proceeds of crime.
No one was punished, instead I got some BS reason as to why it took a letter and 3 months for me to get my money back despite the fact I was released on the same day without charge after they realised their major cock up.
My mate recently made allegations against an officer. The incident occured in an ultra mordern police station with CCTV/audio coverage from end to end. It was a case of he said/ he said but the investigators based their investigation on a balance of probabilities instead of using CCTV/audio and the end result was the usual no evidence of wrongdoing.....If this isnt covering up, I dont know what is.
It wad obvious it was a dirty cop as they couldnt giveban explanation as to why in an envelope containing dollars and pounds, only the pounds were taken. I would have expected everything to be taken and recorded as suspected proceeds of crime.
No one was punished, instead I got some BS reason as to why it took a letter and 3 months for me to get my money back despite the fact I was released on the same day without charge after they realised their major cock up.
My mate recently made allegations against an officer. The incident occured in an ultra mordern police station with CCTV/audio coverage from end to end. It was a case of he said/ he said but the investigators based their investigation on a balance of probabilities instead of using CCTV/audio and the end result was the usual no evidence of wrongdoing.....If this isnt covering up, I dont know what is.
Derek Smith said:
I know I shouldn't but:
I've been involved in police discipline cases in most roles, and the norm has been that police have been the main prosecution witness. Often, although not the majority, the complainant has been a police officer.
In one case, judges, defence briefs and independent legal advice was that there was no case to answer for the six officers charged with various offences over the shooting of an unarmed suspect. Yet the police continued to prosecute and put pressure on the CPS to do so (and they did to their shame) until the decision was taken out of their hands by the trial judge who binned the case before pleading.
A senior officer, with umpteen commendations, a real grafter, and a really good bloke, was arrested after walking out of Tesco with one item not paid for out of dozens. The item was left in the trolley with no attempt to hide.
I saw the full disclosure: just the actus. For anyone other than a police officer the job would have been binned: no case to answer. There would not have even been an arrest. But because he was a police officer the decision was delayed for weeks. It was known that the chap was under stress, and had been treated for PTSD, with loss of memory at times. He hanged himself as he was unable to cope with the additional pressure.
So before you come out with such rubbish, why not ask? You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. I'm sorry for whatever turned you from a normal person into a troll, but I am sorrier for the rest of us.
Just leave the sensible people alone and play among or with yourself.
Or, maybe the public see the police unnecescarily kill unarmed people, and then watch the ranks close. Lo and behold, the copper always comes out clean. Even in cases like that which sparked off the riots. I've been involved in police discipline cases in most roles, and the norm has been that police have been the main prosecution witness. Often, although not the majority, the complainant has been a police officer.
In one case, judges, defence briefs and independent legal advice was that there was no case to answer for the six officers charged with various offences over the shooting of an unarmed suspect. Yet the police continued to prosecute and put pressure on the CPS to do so (and they did to their shame) until the decision was taken out of their hands by the trial judge who binned the case before pleading.
A senior officer, with umpteen commendations, a real grafter, and a really good bloke, was arrested after walking out of Tesco with one item not paid for out of dozens. The item was left in the trolley with no attempt to hide.
I saw the full disclosure: just the actus. For anyone other than a police officer the job would have been binned: no case to answer. There would not have even been an arrest. But because he was a police officer the decision was delayed for weeks. It was known that the chap was under stress, and had been treated for PTSD, with loss of memory at times. He hanged himself as he was unable to cope with the additional pressure.
So before you come out with such rubbish, why not ask? You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. I'm sorry for whatever turned you from a normal person into a troll, but I am sorrier for the rest of us.
Just leave the sensible people alone and play among or with yourself.
Maybe, and I know this may sound ridiculous, but maybe the police should be accountable for their actions? I know that's a big ask, but that's probably more what people are concerned about, rather than someone chancing their luck "nicking" a twix through self service.
Edited by Calletrece on Wednesday 25th November 20:54
Calletrece said:
Or, maybe the public see the police unnecescarily kill unarmed people, and then watch the ranks close. Lo and behold, the copper always comes out clean. Even in cases like that which sparked off the riots.
Maybe, and I know this may sound ridiculous, but maybe the police should be accountable for their actions? I know that's a big ask, but that's probably more what people are concerned about, rather than someone chancing their luck "nicking" a twix through self service.
I'm not sure what you are saying. Maybe, and I know this may sound ridiculous, but maybe the police should be accountable for their actions? I know that's a big ask, but that's probably more what people are concerned about, rather than someone chancing their luck "nicking" a twix through self service.
Edited by Calletrece on Wednesday 25th November 20:54
If you are talking about the case I referred to where an unarmed man was shot, there was never, ever any suggestion, even by the defence, of officers closing ranks. I saw the disclosure and all the witnesses were police officers and there they answered every question put to them. The police officer came out clean, I agree, but the reason was that he was clean. He behaved as taught, within the law, and on the information he had. If you think that's wrong then I'd be interested in finding out how you think this should change.
There were a number of criticisms against certain senior officers, not of either federated ranks of superintendent level, but it would appear that they don't get disciplined but promoted.
Police officers were prosecuted. They had their lives disrupted for years. The cost to them was not repaid, neither were they allowed to sue for compensation, this despite a judge, at an early stage in the proceedings, saying to the CPS that there was no case to answer.
The officers were shafted, many feel to take criticism from senior ranks.
If people are concerned about police officers being accountable, have you considered that it might be those who spread rumour and myth for their own reasons?
Calletrece said:
Or, maybe the public see the police unnecescarily kill unarmed people, and then watch the ranks close. Lo and behold, the copper always comes out clean. Even in cases like that which sparked off the riots.
Maybe, and I know this may sound ridiculous, but maybe the police should be accountable for their actions? I know that's a big ask, but that's probably more what people are concerned about, rather than someone chancing their luck "nicking" a twix through self service.
Which country and which police are you talking about? Which riots are you talking about? There are big differences between the US and UK, for example. Maybe, and I know this may sound ridiculous, but maybe the police should be accountable for their actions? I know that's a big ask, but that's probably more what people are concerned about, rather than someone chancing their luck "nicking" a twix through self service.
Why are people talking about UK Policing in a thread about USA Police?
The recent example in the US of the video that has just come out is horrendous and the officer involved should be in prison for a very long time along with anyone who tried to prevent the footage seeing the light of day. But situations like this have nothing to do with UK Police.
The recent example in the US of the video that has just come out is horrendous and the officer involved should be in prison for a very long time along with anyone who tried to prevent the footage seeing the light of day. But situations like this have nothing to do with UK Police.
La Liga said:
Can't disagree with most of the above. Looks like murder to me.
They could learn a lot from the way we scrutinise and investigate shootings, although the volume of police shootings over there is what, over 500-1000x the amount we have, so that would require a rather large independent investigatory body. It's hard to calculate since, and this always amazes me, there is no formal way of recording how many police shootings there are.
You almost get the feeling that some Police officers in the US think they have a licence to kill. They could learn a lot from the way we scrutinise and investigate shootings, although the volume of police shootings over there is what, over 500-1000x the amount we have, so that would require a rather large independent investigatory body. It's hard to calculate since, and this always amazes me, there is no formal way of recording how many police shootings there are.
The risk levels to the police are on a different level to what we have here.
I'm no expert on US policing, but it looks like a lot of the problems come from not being able to escalate and de-escalate in line with a changing situation. It's almost as if once they're at a 10 they must remain at a 10.
I'm no expert on US policing, but it looks like a lot of the problems come from not being able to escalate and de-escalate in line with a changing situation. It's almost as if once they're at a 10 they must remain at a 10.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff