Well said. It's critical for police to be held accountable, but when a person (or supposed watchdog group) goes off on almost every incident, people stop listening to that person (or group). Keep your powder dry.
Oh Jesus, really?????????????????? (see duplicate thread soon to be posted)
- Thread starter Joshbrown
- Start date
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
I describe the video to a Tee and you ask if I watched the video? I was responding to someone that lied about the video. Maybe you should go back about 10 to 12 posts and get a refresher. All that being said, I'm just using the same argument that cop apologists use... "we only have a small fraction of the evidence/video footage, etc."
At this point, I'm more interested in the other 2 officers' bodycam footage and why the 2 that ICPD disclosed started so late in the situation. Footage #2 started after they searched him. Seems like an odd time to turn on the bodycam, doesn't it?
Last edited:
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
DOJ?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/19/judge-orders-doj-lawyers-remedial-ethics-classes/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/19/judge-orders-doj-lawyers-remedial-ethics-classes/
The DOJ - IRS - FBI - EPA - none of them have exactly been friends to the rule of law since Jan 2009.
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
You do realize the Department of Justice is a Law Enforcement Agency, right? The Irony, It Hurts!
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
He's been trollin this thread since the beginning. At least I hope that is what is going on. The alternative is disturbing.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
How is this about my political ideology? When videos show the police being completely corrupt and using excessive force, I say that is what happened. When videos show the police doing their jobs and doing it well, I say that is what happened. It is pretty simple. I'm not defending police when they are being shown by video using excessive force. I am also not the one ripping on the police even when it is clear the video shows they are doing a very difficult job well.
Last edited:
AreWeThereYet
Well-Known Member
I would be less dismissive. Good cops standing up for bad cops is a significant long term problem in U.S. police departments. The problem is compounded by the fact that police departments and the DA office are essentially on the same side, and there is minimal outside oversight. The fact remains that police are rarely charged for on duty shootings. Many of those cases are both flagrant and obvious.
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
Oh, you're one of those people who believe every issue has two equally-weighted sides. It's a free country. But in this instance trjsirius is arguing the cops are the bad guys. They aren't. And I think you've already made it clear you feel the same. But now you want to back him because you feel uncomfortable watching him lose this debate. Oh, and make no mistake, he's already lost the debate on this specific topic.
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
Oh crap, now we're gonna talk about "significant long term problems". And as usual the irrational are going to call the solution the problem . . . and the problem the solution.
FBI = green-lighted a career felon to be the next POTUS and refused to investigate numerous people in the executive branch guilty of corruption.
IRS = used as a soviet style instrument to crush dissent and political opposition. And also allowed political friends to cheat on their taxes without consequences.
EPA = single-handedly destroyed the coal industry and is going after other industries.
DOJ = repeatedly violated the constitution; armed narco-terrorists; prosecuted innocent people to further a political agenda; and refused to prosecute someone who violated Fed. laws numerous times in numerous ways simply because of their political affiliation.
DNC = see wikileaks
HOMELAND SECURITY = is supposed to protect the borders but has instead torn them down.
You want to talk to me about "significant long term problems"? How about this "significant short term problem". The rule-of-law and the Republic which embraced it is crumbling at an accelerated rate. The thin blue line ain't perfect and it never will be. But anyone expecting perfection labors inside a child's reality.
FBI = green-lighted a career felon to be the next POTUS and refused to investigate numerous people in the executive branch guilty of corruption.
IRS = used as a soviet style instrument to crush dissent and political opposition. And also allowed political friends to cheat on their taxes without consequences.
EPA = single-handedly destroyed the coal industry and is going after other industries.
DOJ = repeatedly violated the constitution; armed narco-terrorists; prosecuted innocent people to further a political agenda; and refused to prosecute someone who violated Fed. laws numerous times in numerous ways simply because of their political affiliation.
DNC = see wikileaks
HOMELAND SECURITY = is supposed to protect the borders but has instead torn them down.
You want to talk to me about "significant long term problems"? How about this "significant short term problem". The rule-of-law and the Republic which embraced it is crumbling at an accelerated rate. The thin blue line ain't perfect and it never will be. But anyone expecting perfection labors inside a child's reality.
Last edited:
ATLHawkeye
Well-Known Member
How anybody can watch the video and see anything other than the police doing their job, and Faith cooperating 100%, is beyond me. I hate that Faith was put in that scary position, but to make this into something sinister on the part of the police is simply ridiculous. Pictures would have possibly helped the situation, but to think they should have had photos within 5 minutes of the attempted robbery is laughable. From listening to their conversation, they still didn't know if the suspect was wearing shorts or pants... only that they were dressed in black and had something on their head. Did you see Faith's goggles? He fit the description at least enough to check it out. C'mon, man!
And so is the Supreme Court. Terry v, Ohio
With the information they had to go on the IC police had every right to stop and search an armed robbery suspect in the manor they did. Not just the right but the obligation in the performance of their duty while investigating an armed robbery. They did a professional job in a very tense situation. People can try to lump this incident in with other police misconduct cases but it just don't fit. Square peg in a round hole.
I am truly sorry Faith got tangled up in this and had the to endure a scary situation. It sounds as if he was man enough to handle it though. Way to "Hawkeye Up" Faith!!!!
Last edited:
trj
Well-Known Member
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
god forbid we end this thread with a reasonable post like the one above... enough already.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
This is just exactly it. Any reasonable person who watches the video can only come to this conclusion. That is why I said if you can't see it this way, you probably need to look into a mirror, or re examine your agenda.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
It was 1997.
SteveGarvey1
Well-Known Member
Maybe you ought to just stick with sexology, Dr. Ruth.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Watching the video, my observations.
1. There is a lot of obesity there. Obese officers will result in shortcuts taken as they can't run and maneuver quickly and for sure not for very long.
2. The city officer trying to hide the gun behind his back could have triggered panic. If you are going to unholster, don't try and hide it. Go ahead and bring it pointing it down. Having a hand on top of a gun also raises tension.
3. The body cams are missing info and the hand over the camera doesn't come across well. Very unprofessional. Seems to happen a lot across the country.....
4. There are missing body cams, but there are different jurisdictions present.
5. I know they were looking for a suspect, but traumatizing someone and saying "Have a Nice Day" or something to that effect is NOT professional. Was he contacted later?
6. They wasted a lot of resources on a false alarm while the real culprit got away.
7. I seriously doubt that if the description they received was of a white brown haired white mail wearing black with something on his head....I doubt they would have stopped everyone meeting that description.
8. Having worked in a bank, I can tell you that they could have had a picture sent out within 10 minutes. Banks (at least some) go through very specific training. The police should know exactly who to contact at a specific location.
IC Police need to change bank robbery protocol. This was very poorly handled.
1. There is a lot of obesity there. Obese officers will result in shortcuts taken as they can't run and maneuver quickly and for sure not for very long.
2. The city officer trying to hide the gun behind his back could have triggered panic. If you are going to unholster, don't try and hide it. Go ahead and bring it pointing it down. Having a hand on top of a gun also raises tension.
3. The body cams are missing info and the hand over the camera doesn't come across well. Very unprofessional. Seems to happen a lot across the country.....
4. There are missing body cams, but there are different jurisdictions present.
5. I know they were looking for a suspect, but traumatizing someone and saying "Have a Nice Day" or something to that effect is NOT professional. Was he contacted later?
6. They wasted a lot of resources on a false alarm while the real culprit got away.
7. I seriously doubt that if the description they received was of a white brown haired white mail wearing black with something on his head....I doubt they would have stopped everyone meeting that description.
8. Having worked in a bank, I can tell you that they could have had a picture sent out within 10 minutes. Banks (at least some) go through very specific training. The police should know exactly who to contact at a specific location.
IC Police need to change bank robbery protocol. This was very poorly handled.
Yeah, my bad on the typo, it was late. But example still applies.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
My observation. You seem to know it all, run for office.
