So Sendec...

If your parnter pulled a gun and starts shooting an innocent person (and you know this), you'd just let him/her do it?

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

If John Q. Citizen (with no prior convictions or arrests) was involved in a use of deadly force under circumstances that could be considered reasonable, he wouldn't be jailed indefinitely while the incident was still being investigated. He might very well be released without having to even post bail.

You say it yourself right here. Double standard. John Q may not be jailed indefinitely, but he would be jailed. Behind bars, not behind a desk.

John Q. Public (with no prior contact by the police) isn't a known source and hasn't been employed by "the people" in a position that sometimes requires the use of deadly force. John Q. Public isn't provided (by law) the ability to take certain actions based upon his selection, training and knowledge. There are "double standards" because peace officers have to meet higher standards to obtain, hold and remain qualified for that position, than citizens need to be citizens. These same standards provide peace officers with powers other citizens don't have. IE: The power to make arrests based upon "probable Cause" in situations when citizens must know facts as a certainty.

What you fail to understand a1abdj is that police officers aren't like John Q. Citizen, who rarely if ever finds himself in a situation that requires the use of force (deadly or otherwise). If John Q. Citizen ever uses force, it's going to be for one of two reasons:
1) To commit an (unlawful) assault against someone either for personal gain or out of animosity.
2) To Protect Himself or a family member from an unusual threat.

The police routinely are in situations where they are required to use force (not necessarily deadly force) to effect arrests and to protect to protect others as part of their job. Being in that position exposes them far more often to the necessity of using force to protect themselves. While the use of deadly force by officers (as individuals) is still rare, the potential need to use it happens far more often to them than to John Q. Citizen.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
So Sendec...

If your parnter pulled a gun and starts shooting an innocent person (and you know this), you'd just let him/her do it?

WTF? I don't see a single post from sendec on this subject. Did he delete it or did you miss id another member? I'm not his... greatest fan... but come on.

quote:

Originally posted by Psychobastard:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
So Sendec...

If your parnter pulled a gun and starts shooting an innocent person (and you know this), you'd just let him/her do it?

WTF? I don't see a single post from sendec on this subject. Did he delete it or did you miss id another member? I'm not his... greatest fan... but come on.

I'll take a chance on this one! If he "knew" the person was innocent (like the partner's wife?), he'd shoot.

What we fail to understand is that police officers aren't like John Q. Citizen because some police officers permit themselves and other police officers to be judge, jury, and summary executioners.

quote:

WTF? I don't see a single post from sendec on this subject. Did he delete it or did you miss id another member? I'm not his... greatest fan... but come on.

Bottom of page 1.

Regardless of perspective, and what if's, and what the police handbook says here is what we have.

We have a bad cop that according to witnesses said "Time to end this. Enough is enough" after tasing somebody. He then shot a guy in the back 10 times.

Another officer (one of those guys you can trust because of all of their training, experience, and honesty) said "He perceived no immediate or imminent threat to the defendant (Meade), and civilians, or himself with the defendant opened fire".

The second officer took no action to stop the first, when in his opinion, the first officer was murdering somebody.

The officer/murderer then got to work at the police department for awhile. Whereas any of us would have had our lives destroyed from day one.

IF officer Klocker knew at the time that officer Meade was opening fire on a non threat (and that's what it sounds like from his statement), Officer Klocker should have put one right into Officer Meade's head. That's his job.

IF he didn't know that at the time, and only realized it after the fact, then I can not fault him for not taking that action.

quote:

John Q. Public (with no prior contact by the police) isn't a known source and hasn't been employed by "the people" in a position that sometimes requires the use of deadly force. John Q. Public isn't provided (by law) the ability to take certain actions based upon his selection, training and knowledge. There are "double standards" because peace officers have to meet higher standards to obtain, hold and remain qualified for that position, than citizens need to be citizens.

So with all of these high standards, qualifications, training, and selection (the best of the best), why are there so many shitbags with badges?

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
[So with all of these high standards, qualifications, training, and selection (the best of the best), why are there so many shitbags with badges?

That has got to be at the top of the list of "Worlds Dumbest Questions"

Why are their shitbags in Congress?

Why are their shitbags sitting on the bench in courtrooms?

Why are their shit bags on TV?

Why do shit bags get to be movie stars?

Why are their shitbags in religious orders?

Why are their shitbags working at the grocery store?

I will tell you why. Because none of these people have to pass the all knowing eye of a1abdj. They are all the rsult of falibility on the part of mere mortals.

quote:

I will tell you why. Because none of these people have to pass the all knowing eye of a1abdj. They are all the rsult of falibility on the part of mere mortals.

There are shitbags everywhere. However, none of the other professions you mention undergo all of the "training, high standards, qualification, and selection" that the police tend to cite as to why they are the best of the best.

Shouldn't their vetting process address this? How do these guys get past the system? Grocery stores, churches, production companies, and elected officials aren't getting lie detector test and psych evaluations.

It may seem to get lost in my ranting, but I'll state it again. I am very pro good cop. I am very anti bad cop.

I'd like to know why the OP (pulicords) titled this as "Another Cop Cover-up" What, pray tell, was being covered up?

The officer was involved in a shooting and placed behind a desk (which is probably per their policy). His fellow officer said it was not a justified shooting during the investigation, which ultimately led to Meade being charged.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Are you just another cop hater who thinks anytime a cop does something wrong or illegal that its another cover-up?

I read the article you attached and saw nothing that even suggested a cover-up. It looked like one officer, based on observations of another officer and other witnesses did something wrong and is now facing criminal charges. Where's the cover-up you mentioned?

Your thread title shows your obvious bias against LEO's. Thats fine, I've got a bias against armchair quarterbacking citizens who jump to conclusions based on an article from the press, which we all know is ALWAYS accurate and impartial in their reporting.

Edit: I get the sarcastic "Cover-up" reference now. My apologies to Pulicords for misunderstanding his thread title.

Here I am being pro cop.

The OP is a LEO, and he is using sarcasm. He is using this instance as an example that the police are not always covering up the misdeeds of those in their ranks.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

WTF? I don't see a single post from sendec on this subject. Did he delete it or did you miss id another member? I'm not his... greatest fan... but come on.

Bottom of page 1.

Regardless of perspective, and what if's, and what the police handbook says here is what we have.

We have a bad cop that according to witnesses said "Time to end this. Enough is enough" after tasing somebody. He then shot a guy in the back 10 times.

Another officer (one of those guys you can trust because of all of their training, experience, and honesty) said "He perceived no immediate or imminent threat to the defendant (Meade), and civilians, or himself with the defendant opened fire".

The second officer took no action to stop the first, when in his opinion, the first officer was murdering somebody.

The officer/murderer then got to work at the police department for awhile. Whereas any of us would have had our lives destroyed from day one.

IF officer Klocker knew at the time that officer Meade was opening fire on a non threat (and that's what it sounds like from his statement), Officer Klocker should have put one right into Officer Meade's head. That's his job.

IF he didn't know that at the time, and only realized it after the fact, then I can not fault him for not taking that action.

quote:

John Q. Public (with no prior contact by the police) isn't a known source and hasn't been employed by "the people" in a position that sometimes requires the use of deadly force. John Q. Public isn't provided (by law) the ability to take certain actions based upon his selection, training and knowledge. There are "double standards" because peace officers have to meet higher standards to obtain, hold and remain qualified for that position, than citizens need to be citizens.

So with all of these high standards, qualifications, training, and selection (the best of the best), why are there so many shitbags with badges?

a1abdj: Its time you went back to page one and get your facts straight. According to the article he shot the victim 7 times, not 10. Try to keep your hate and bias from skewing the facts.

And yes, there are shitbags with badges, just as there are in any and all professions, and dare I say, on Internet forums hiding behind their keyboards. I arrested a fellow officer yesterday afternoon for making "shitbag" mistakes. There are bad apples in every bunch, that's life and no hiring standard will ever weed them out.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj: So with all of these high standards, qualifications, training, and selection (the best of the best), why are there so many shitbags with badges?

First, I'd disagree that there are "many shitbags with badges." Second, if the community wasn't faced with the fact there's so many real shitbags out there regularly victimizing them, they wouldn't need to have people working as police officers.

Second: If the vast majority of society didn't recognize how difficult the job of being a police officer is, they wouldn't afford them the "benefit of the doubt." That's why cases like this have to (by necessity) be investigated thoroughly before charges can be filed. If they weren't, a "Not Guilty" verdict is a strong probability, because just like "John Q. Citizen" and even you, criminal charges against police officers must be proved to all members of the jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Last: If cops were judged by persons of your "caliber" virtually no one would take the job. While the officer who fired the shots appears to have acted improperly and even criminally, those who witnessed the act (and probably had neither the time nor ability to do anything to prevent it) acted in a completely proper manner. They (like the investigators) did their jobs honestly, fairly and in good faith, but you hold them responsible for the act of a co-worker you have no evidence has ever acted improperly before.

I guess the fact they wear the same uniform or were hired to perform the same services makes them guilty for the other officer's transgressions in your eyes. This is where your own personal biases branch off from reality and no amount of discussion or evidence will cause you to understand it. You have no idea what a "good cop" is, other than from what you've seen portrayed in fiction. You are in fact as wrong, as those you see all around you.

There was an interesting question raised in an earlier post, and I kick it out to all the LEOs who are watching this thread....

What would you do if you were in the position of one of the cops in the above scenario? Would you try to stop the cop who was shooting? Frankly, I'm not sure there's time to do anything, but I'm curious as to your perspectives.

tk

quote:

a1abdj: Its time you went back to page one and get your facts straight. According to the article he shot the victim 7 times, not 10. Try to keep your hate and bias from skewing the facts.

You are correct. When scanning the article to recall the number of times shot, I picked up on the "10" that was the day in June.

He only shot him 7 times, not 10. Not guilty!

I also appologize for being biased and hateful against criminals. I'm sure as an officer, you don't show any bias or hate towards criminals yourself.

quote:

on Internet forums hiding behind their keyboards.

Oh, I see what you're doing here.

quote:

And yes, there are shitbags with badges, just as there are in any and all professions, and dare I say, on Internet forums hiding behind their keyboards. I arrested a fellow officer yesterday afternoon for making "shitbag" mistakes.

So the officer you arrested was not intentionally committing any crimes. Whatever he/she did was just an accident?

quote:

There are bad apples in every bunch, that's life and no hiring standard will ever weed them out.

You are right. But why are there so many within your ranks, especially considering all of the hoops that need to be jumped through?

Maybe the hiring standards should be changed. Maybe the laws need to be changed to act as more of a deterrent.

Isn't there some kind of legal precedent regarding those present at certain events...ie; rape, murder, prisoner abuse...that make you guilty by non-preventative action as if you had done the deed yourself?

Woody

quote:

First, I'd disagree that there are "many shitbags with badges." Second, if the community wasn't faced with the fact there's so many real shitbags out there regularly victimizing them, they wouldn't need to have people working as police officers.

I guess this depends on your definition of "many", but I believe that there are "many" by my definition. I am not making this determination based solely on what I read online. I have real life encounters that reinforce this opinion. Perhaps this is unique to the area that I live in.

quote:

Second: If the vast majority of society didn't recognize how difficult the job of being a police officer is, they wouldn't afford them the "benefit of the doubt." That's why cases like this have to (by necessity) be investigated thoroughly before charges can be filed. If they weren't, a "Not Guilty" verdict is a strong probability, because just like "John Q. Citizen" and even you, criminal charges against police officers must be proved to all members of the jury beyond reasonable doubt.

I agree with this. I don't know why you don't think that I do.

quote:

Last: If cops were judged by persons of your "caliber" virtually no one would take the job. While the officer who fired the shots appears to have acted improperly and even criminally, those who witnessed the act (and probably had neither the time nor ability to do anything to prevent it) acted in a completely proper manner. They (like the investigators) did their jobs honestly, fairly and in good faith, but you hold them responsible for the act of a co-worker you have no evidence has ever acted improperly before.

Cops are judged by persons of my caliber. Of course, you don't really know what my caliber is, seeing the only thing you know about me is what you read here on this forum.

quote:

I guess the fact they wear the same uniform or were hired to perform the same services makes them guilty for the other officer's transgressions in your eyes. This is where your own personal biases branch off from reality and no amount of discussion or evidence will cause you to understand it. You have no idea what a "good cop" is, other than from what you've seen portrayed in fiction. You are in fact as wrong, as those you see all around you.

I never said the other (innocent) officer was wrong. I am of the opinion that he COULD have been wrong.

BTW, I do know what a good cop is. I hang out with a few of them. I also know what a bad cop is. I've hung out with a few of them as well.

quote:

Originally posted by operator81:....there are shitbags with badges, just as there are in any and all professions, and dare I say, on Internet forums hiding behind their keyboards. I arrested a fellow officer yesterday afternoon for making "shitbag" mistakes. There are bad apples in every bunch, that's life and no hiring standard will ever weed them out.

+1,000! As one who's also arrested fellow LEOs and initiated administrative investigations on those who've only violated departmental standards, I agree with you completely.

It's a sad fact of this business that one reason managers hate to publicize actions taken by their agencies against cops who offend is "20/20 Hindsight" shown by those like a1abdj. To see possible wrongdoing by one of "our own", investigate it and act on it isn't enough. By not preventing it, we're as much to blame as the person that committed the act. I'm sure the officer in question (like all members of his department) was thoroughly tested (including psychologically), investigated, trained and evaluated before he was hired, scrutinized during his training period and supervised closely during the next eleven years of his employment. Unfortunately he's still a member of the human race and as such, is subject to doing wrong (even evil) for unknown reasons.

It's the department's fault they didn't use their crystal ball to forecast this event. If the guilty as well as the innocent are punished, this probably won't happen again.

quote:

It's a sad fact of this business that one reason managers hate to publicize actions taken by their agencies against cops who offend is "20/20 Hindsight" shown by those like a1abdj.

I think you're letting your hate and bias get in the way. That's not what I've said at all.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj: Cops are judged by persons of my caliber. Of course, you don't really know what my caliber is, seeing the only thing you know about me is what you read here on this forum.

It doesn't take a lot of effort to figure you out as you express your opinions quite clearly. "Hanging out" with cops (good or bad) doesn't mean you have the maturity to understand what it takes to either perform the job or select, train, evaluate and supervise those who do.

I've hung out with pilots, but I can't get into an aircraft, then fly it off the ground, perform aerobatics, fly cross country and land at my intended destination. Unlike you, I recognize the pilot's knowledge, experience, ability and skills. I don't believe my ability to hold toy airplanes allows me to pilot real ones. While "bad pilots" might crash, until they did I probably wouldn't recognize their unsuitability. When they did crash, I wouldn't automatically blame their fellow pilots for the tragedy.

quote:

Originally posted by countrygun:

quote:

Originally posted by depusm12:

quote:

Originally posted by countrygun:
How come nobody planted one of the "cold piece's" they all carry, on the dead guy

I'm not sure what you trying to imply, but all of the officers I personally know and those I work with carry no "cold piece" (what ever that is) and I resent the implication. FYI every weapon we do carry has to be logged in our file by weapon type, caliber and serial number.

Sorry if I got your dander up. I thought most who know me around here would recognize it as sarcasm aimed at the "bashers" who tend to show up. Much as the OP did with his choice of wording in the thread title.

For what its worth countrygun; I don't know you/your post style, but I took your post as sarcasim (i.e. busting on the bashers), when I read it.