Conquer Club

mizery24 wrote:Any other solutions? I read all of your comments about how dreadful our cops are. You and I both know we need them. So do you have a better solution?!

I think you missed his point entirely. He didn't say all cops are dreadful. He said several times that the majority are good, and the sociopaths are a small minority. Nobody, but nobody, in this conversation has said ALL cops are bad. Nobody has even said a majority are bad.

Probably less than 10% of the cops are bad. Maybe less than 5%. Who knows, maybe less than 2%. The point is that the minority of bad cops are never held to account. Nothing is ever done to them. They kill innocent people are are rarely charged with anything, and when charged are almost never convicted, because their fellow cops, the majority, out of a misguided sense of loyalty, will look the other way and pretend they didn't see anything.

The solution is simple. Ridiculously simple. The bad cops, whatever minority it is, whether it's 10% or 5% or 2% or 1%, NEED TO BE HELD TO ACCOUNT. The wall of silence has got to be broken down. The good cops have got to drop this misguided loyalty, stop looking the other way when they see one of the bad ones beating the shit out of a non-resisting suspect or whatever, and start effectively prosecuting the bad apples.

It's ludicrously simple, but it's also not easy. Because man is a tribal species, and loyalty to the tribe runs deep. My country right or wrong. We defend our own even when they're wrong. Right from kindergarten your peers will teach you, don't be a tattle-tale, don't be a rat, if one of your friends is committing a crime you go to jail as an accessory rather than speak the truth. It's very, very difficult to break this training, especially among organizations like the police where loyalty is reinforced from basic training onward.

It's not easy, but if you want a civilized society it has to be done. Organizations have got to start drumming out the bad apples. Whether its con-men churning accounts at investment houses, or pedophiles in the Church, or gangsters in a police uniform, good men need to stop protecting evil men out of a sense of loyalty. Betraying the trust inherent in one's office should result in the whole organization closing ranks to boot you out the door, not closing ranks to hide your crimes.

I agree that cops need to be held accountable, and they are. They are put on leave and then go to trial.

You missed the part where he said (or someone) said that all cops are part of the Blue Code, where they cover for each other, thus that makes them all bad.

mizery24 wrote:I agree that cops need to be held accountable, and they are. They are put on leave and then go to trial.

Really?

In 2010, for the regular population (not officers) there were about 162,000 Federal Grand Juries convened. In only 11 of those grand juries did they decline to indict. So Grand Jury indictments for the population reaches damn near 100%.

Stats for Grand juries convened for police officers is a little sketchy, only specific areas have been looked at. For instance, in Dallas from 2008 to 2012 there were 81 Grand juries convened to investigate police shootings. Only once was an indictment handed down.

Now when you get into other crimes that police commit, compared to the general population, you see more of this. Felony defendats in the general population convicted in court has a rate of 68% conviction rate with a 48% of those convictions resulting in incarceration.

Police accused of misconducted from 2009-2010 resulted in 33% convicted and only 12% incarcerated.

The reason why the statistics are so sketchy, and get this, you'll love this, States aren't required to report police killings to the FBI and some States (like New York) report nothing at all.
There is virtually zero federal oversight of the police when it comes to homicides (as well as any other misconduct) by the police. It is well known that the police are rarely ever indicted. Just google "percentage of police grand jury indictments" and you'll see reports by the Washington Post, WSJ, Yahoonews and virtually every other news network who have gone into this issue and they all find the same thing, almost no police indictments. Especially when you compare indictments of police to indictments of regular people, which as I said, reaches damn near 100% of the time. The cops, not even close.

mizery wrote:You missed the part where he said (or someone) said that all cops are part of the Blue Code, where they cover for each other, thus that makes them all bad.

Someone else said the Blue Code or whatever, like there is a name for it. I don't know it. All I know is that if you are part of an organization and you turn your eye from wrong doings then you are just as guilty as the wrongdoer. That's true for cops, it's true for citizens, it's true for you, mizery. If you witness a crime, especially a felony (like murder, falsification of official reports, lying under oath, etc etc) then you can also be charged for said crime as an accomplice or/and accomplice after the fact. It's not rocket science, there is no way even you can deny that, you'd agree.

But what stats we know of the police, grand juries, indictments, conviction and incarcerations, the evidence doesn't at all point to-

mizery wrote:I agree that cops need to be held accountable, and they are. They are put on leave and then go to trial.

According to what we know that isn't the case.

All this leads to the perception that the police can't be trusted. You can yell at the top of your lungs "But you can trust the police!" and all those who don't trust the police still won't trust the police no matter what you try and say. You say the cops are held accountable but offer zero evidence showing that is the case. You just state it as a naive given of someone who just assumes.

Like I've said, I don't know what is going on with all the police killings, especially of unarmed victims, but something is definitely wrong and something needs to be done about it. I have no idea how to go about that, I'd at least like to see that if a cop shoots an unarmed suspect that's it, they're going to jail period. I don't give a shit if they say they "thought" the suspect had a gun, the cops better be damn sure the suspect has a gun before they deprive a citizen of their life.
Ain't no one in the US has the right to deprive another citizen of their life without due process. Not you, not me, not the cops, not the politicians. And one can't claim self defense if the supposed assailant isn't armed.
You try it, mizery, shoot someone who is unarmed on the public street and then tell the cops "It was self defense I swear! I thought he had a gun!" and see what happens to you. You best hope you've got a bashed in head or some injury proving your claim though or your ass will be going to jail.
For a cop, though, all they gotta do is say they felt their life was in danger and zip a dee da they're off the hook 99 times out of a 100.

That don't fly, brother.
You say I, we need cops, but I, we don't need a group of people that aren't held to the same accountability that the rest of us are.

We are all supposed to be equal under the law, this includes cops and politicians. Any rational person knows this isn't the case though.

patches70 wrote:

mizery24 wrote:I agree that cops need to be held accountable, and they are. They are put on leave and then go to trial.

Really?

In 2010, for the regular population (not officers) there were about 162,000 Federal Grand Juries convened. In only 11 of those grand juries did they decline to indict. So Grand Jury indictments for the population reaches damn near 100%.

Stats for Grand juries convened for police officers is a little sketchy, only specific areas have been looked at. For instance, in Dallas from 2008 to 2012 there were 81 Grand juries convened to investigate police shootings. Only once was an indictment handed down.

Now when you get into other crimes that police commit, compared to the general population, you see more of this. Felony defendats in the general population convicted in court has a rate of 68% conviction rate with a 48% of those convictions resulting in incarceration.

Police accused of misconducted from 2009-2010 resulted in 33% convicted and only 12% incarcerated.

The reason why the statistics are so sketchy, and get this, you'll love this, States aren't required to report police killings to the FBI and some States (like New York) report nothing at all.
There is virtually zero federal oversight of the police when it comes to homicides (as well as any other misconduct) by the police. It is well known that the police are rarely ever indicted. Just google "percentage of police grand jury indictments" and you'll see reports by the Washington Post, WSJ, Yahoonews and virtually every other news network who have gone into this issue and they all find the same thing, almost no police indictments. Especially when you compare indictments of police to indictments of regular people, which as I said, reaches damn near 100% of the time. The cops, not even close.

mizery wrote:You missed the part where he said (or someone) said that all cops are part of the Blue Code, where they cover for each other, thus that makes them all bad.

Someone else said the Blue Code or whatever, like there is a name for it. I don't know it. All I know is that if you are part of an organization and you turn your eye from wrong doings then you are just as guilty as the wrongdoer. That's true for cops, it's true for citizens, it's true for you, mizery. If you witness a crime, especially a felony (like murder, falsification of official reports, lying under oath, etc etc) then you can also be charged for said crime as an accomplice or/and accomplice after the fact. It's not rocket science, there is no way even you can deny that, you'd agree.

But what stats we know of the police, grand juries, indictments, conviction and incarcerations, the evidence doesn't at all point to-

mizery wrote:I agree that cops need to be held accountable, and they are. They are put on leave and then go to trial.

According to what we know that isn't the case.

All this leads to the perception that the police can't be trusted. You can yell at the top of your lungs "But you can trust the police!" and all those who don't trust the police still won't trust the police no matter what you try and say. You say the cops are held accountable but offer zero evidence showing that is the case. You just state it as a naive given of someone who just assumes.

Like I've said, I don't know what is going on with all the police killings, especially of unarmed victims, but something is definitely wrong and something needs to be done about it. I have no idea how to go about that, I'd at least like to see that if a cop shoots an unarmed suspect that's it, they're going to jail period. I don't give a shit if they say they "thought" the suspect had a gun, the cops better be damn sure the suspect has a gun before they deprive a citizen of their life.
Ain't no one in the US has the right to deprive another citizen of their life without due process. Not you, not me, not the cops, not the politicians. And one can't claim self defense if the supposed assailant isn't armed.
You try it, mizery, shoot someone who is unarmed on the public street and then tell the cops "It was self defense I swear! I thought he had a gun!" and see what happens to you. You best hope you've got a bashed in head or some injury proving your claim though or your ass will be going to jail.
For a cop, though, all they gotta do is say they felt their life was in danger and zip a dee da they're off the hook 99 times out of a 100.

That don't fly, brother.
You say I, we need cops, but I, we don't need a group of people that aren't held to the same accountability that the rest of us are.

We are all supposed to be equal under the law, this includes cops and politicians. Any rational person knows this isn't the case though.

It's not called Blue Code. The Blue Wall is where supposedly good cops cover for bad cops. It happens everywhere in the world, including the good Ole USA.

These good cops who lie for their fellow brothers/sisters are as guilty as those who commit a crime against civilians.

This happened today.

First, take a look at this picture.




The guy in the grey shirt is unidentified, his name hasn't been released for reasons that will become apparent.

The other guy, the black guy, his name is Charles Kinsey. Charles works at a mental health center and he is a caretaker. The guy in the grey shirt was at the facility and wandered off, he is autistic according to reports. Charles went out after him, he is a caretaker after all.

The police showed up. The picture you see above is Charles following police orders to lie on the ground and show his hands, which he is doing obviously. Moments after this picture was taken Charles was shot by police. He was Shot, by Police. Luckily, Charles was not killed. The officer that fired, fired three shots, one of which struck Charles in the leg. He was then handcuffed and once it was realized that no crimes were committed he was sent to the hospital.
Charles asked the cop who shot him- "Why'd you shoot me?!!"
The cop reportedly answered- "I don't know".

There was no weapon. Charles was complying to all orders and he still got shot.

The officer has been put on administration leave and the city of Miami is already working on a settlement deal with Mr Kinsey. Kinsey to his credit is taking it pretty well, he's just glad to be alive.

The officer who shot him won't be charged with any crime. He might get fired. But that's it. It is interesting to note, in the report it is stated that the officer was using an assault rifle when he shot Mr Kinley. As Mr Kinley is laying down he is telling the officers that neither he nor the unidentified man were armed. Kinley had his hands up just as you see in the picture when he was shot.

<shrugs>
There is no excuse for this. The officer made a mistake obviously. Mistake or not as far as I'm concerned this is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The only crime committed was that of the police officer. Had any one of us regular citizen had done this that's exactly what we'd be charged with, aggravated assault. The officer is currently on paid leave. He wasn't the only officer there at the time. The other officers should have disarmed the officer that fired, handcuffed him and put him in the back of a police car, for you guessed it, aggravated assault.
But, the officer will likely get suspended and if he's really unlucky he'll get fired. The city of Miami will pay a huge settlement (rightfully so) and the officer in question will either return to work or collect unemployment until he gets another job (maybe as a police officer in some other jurisdiction) and he won't lose his pension.
Qualified immunity shouldn't shield this officer in this case because qualified immunity only applies when "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Would a reasonable person have shot Mr Kinley in that situation?

Source--
ABC news-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... rfWDvtFyJw
or
Google "cop shoots caretaker of autistic man playing in street with a toy truck"
or
google "charles kinsey"
and watch the video yourself if you want, but it'll make you facepalm at the incompetence of the cops.
Or go to the Miami herald website to see the story. They are the one's reporting it.
Oh, and the spin doctors for the North Miami police said they are investigating and said "during negotiations an officer discharged his weapon". The spokesperson makes it sound like the police thought they were in danger from the autistic guy and and the guy laying on the ground with his hands up trying to explain what was going on. The cops just didn't listen. They are too fucking scared to think straight.
All the officers on the scene should be sacked, the one who fired his weapon should be charged with assault and pay for his own legal defense from his own pocket like the rest of us would have to. The officer who did the shooting should also be sued civilly by the city for damages that the city has to shell out for this debacle.
f*ck
the
police.

Best places for Americans to seek asylum:

1 - Cuba
2 - Iceland
3 - Ecuador
4 - Venezuela
5 - France

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-pla ... ?op=1&IR=T

mrswdk wrote:Best places for Americans to seek asylum:

1 - Cuba
2 - Iceland
3 - Ecuador
4 - Venezuela
5 - France

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-pla ... ?op=1&IR=T

Lists of nations give me a hard-on.

Holy shit. When people wonder why everyone hates cops, refer to this.

The officer who shot Charles Kinsey is named Jonathan Aledda. He's been with the Miami department for four years and he's a member of the SWAT force.
Aledda said in a statement "I did what I had to do". His story is that he thought Charles Kinsey's life was in danger so he shot but missed, striking Kinsey by accident.

However, after Kinsey was shot he was then handcuffed. This officer, with the advice of the police union, is coming up with a story, obviously. Aledda states that he thought Kinsey was a victim so then why did they handcuff him after he shot him?
Aledda, a member of the SWAT team I assume if what he is saying is true, was attempting to shoot the autistic guy sitting in the street. But missed.

Instead of taking any responsibility Aledda deflects making up some bullshit thinking that Kinsey was in some sort of danger when Kinsey the entire time was telling the cops "We aren't armed!" and was pleading with the cops trying to explain what was going on.

No fucking wonder people don't trust the cops. When they f*ck up they don't live up to the consequences and instead make up bull shit. Imagine if this incident hadn't been video taped by a bystander. The cops would completely get away with this, making up some story and without any other evidence outside their control would just sweep this under the rug.

Not to mention, the cops go in raising the level of tension right from the get go. They think they are going in to confront a single guy with a gun threatening to commit suicide so they go in with guns drawn screaming orders at two guys, neither of which are armed and one of them is telling they cops they don't have any weapons. Maybe Aledda thought he was going to get to shoot some dumbass who was suiciding by cop. Hey, how about just talking with a couple of citizens instead of going in with guns drawn screaming orders you stupid fucking cops? Kinsey's got a shirt saying "caretaker" on it with the name of the facility outside which this incident happened after all. A thinking person might be able to put 2 and 2 together quite quickly. I'd have hoped one of the cops might think "Hey, maybe one of these two citizens might know where this single gun wielding fellow is, we should go ask them".

Also, a point that might not be being considered. On youtube there has been a few videos of streamers getting "Swatted". People call in fake hostage situations and such getting the SWAT teams to bust in on a person during a live stream. That's a crime, a serious crime and it'll end up getting someone killed. I think it might be possible that there are people calling 911 with bogus information. The cops might wanna start considering that 911 calls aren't always accurate, either outright hoaxes or serious misunderstandings (as in the case with the unfortunate John Crawford). Guns blazing isn't the way to go. If the cops aren't brave enough to figure out what the f*ck is going on before gunning people down, then those individuals shouldn't be cops. A "do not fire until fired upon" might be a good way to save lives and might go a long way to restoring trust into police. After all, that's the ROE for US soldiers in a war zone.

Yeah but there are ways around that RoE that we abused.

Guy digging a hole? Hostile intent, shoot him.

Dude waving a gun around? Hostile intent, shoot him.

Trying to grab a weapon from another soldier? Hostile intent, shoot him.

Relaying movements, following us while on a cell? Hostile intent, shoot him.

Pretty sure cops will just come up with their own loop holes similar to what we had.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:Yeah but there are ways around that RoE that we abused.

Guy digging a hole? Hostile intent, shoot him.

Dude waving a gun around? Hostile intent, shoot him.

Trying to grab a weapon from another soldier? Hostile intent, shoot him.

Relaying movements, following us while on a cell? Hostile intent, shoot him.

Pretty sure cops will just come up with their own loop holes similar to what we had.

Sure, but remember, it's about perception and regaining trust. The same old same old isn't going to fly anymore. More and more people are waking up and aren't going to stand for abuses anymore. The cops have to do something, make examples of officers. Show they actually care about regaining the public's trust.
Coming up with bullshit stories like the above isn't the way to go about it, people aren't that stupid.

And what do you think about the officer's story, officer Aledda saying that he fired his weapon because he thought Kinsey's life was in danger and then proceeded to handcuff and detain Mr Kinsey even as he lay on the ground shot?

Does that pass the smell test for you?

Of course not, a monkey could determine the clown fucked up, no question about it. But you're asking to change bullshit stories to more elaborate bullshit stories. That RoE is a real easy rule to go around.

Why not just make it harder to join the force with more screening and background checks? Could make it military background preferable, maybe. Training obviously needs a revamp. I'm just tossing shit out there.

Edit - I think we also need to keep in mind, no system is perfect, we'll still get some sick f*ck in the force and in the military regardless.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:
Edit - I think we also need to keep in mind, no system is perfect, we'll still get some sick f*ck in the force and in the military regardless.

What does the military do to sick fucks when they find them?

Well. like you said, the cop fucked up. He should be charged with a crime, go to trial just like the rest of us would have to. If he's found guilty he should go to jail. Cops f*ck up, toss them in jail. That'd go a hell of a long way to not only changing perception but also making the police themselves start showing a little more care because if they f*ck up real bad and hurt or kill someone they'll be held accountable in the same manner any other citizen would be held accountable.
That means indictment virtually 100% of the time like it is with regular citizens and the cops take their chances in court. If a Grand jury is convened then they need to stop declining to indict. They don't decline to indict regular people. The stats show that any random cop on trial would have a 1 in 3 chance of being found not guilty and just under a 50% chance of actually being incarcerated. Just like the rest of the population.
As it stands now, currently, cops have virtually zero chances of being indicted, if indicted they have a 2 in 3 chance of being found not guilty and if convicted only get incarcerated less than 3 in 10 cases.

Using a don't fire unless fired upon ROE wouldn't eliminate the killing of suspects who aren't armed but it adds a layer of ability to punish an officer when they f*ck up and shoot someone.
"Suspect didn't have a weapon, officer"
"Correct"
"And you shot him anyway"
"I thought he had a weapon"
"But you were not fired upon and you fired your weapon in violation of police policy."

At that point the cop could be virtually assured of at the very least being fired and not allowed to be a police officer again and the police union wouldn't be able to stop it. Of course, getting the police union to accept such a ROE in the first place would be virtually impossible.

But, like you, I'm just throwing shit out there. I ain't protesting in front of the police stations, isn't my kind of deal. I'm more of the "look at what happened here" alerting people and you can be sure that I'll be following Aledda's investigation closely. If (when) he gets off with virtually zero punishment I'll be there to make sure everyone knows that I can reach within my meager means and expose this stuff for what it is. Bullshit.

On another note, I can't really fault the officer for using whatever (legal) means he can to avoid prison. Everyone should do that. A jury of his peers can determine if he's full of shit or not. At the moment all he has to do is convince a shooting board of his bullshit and there is an obvious bias there. A jury is not so easily fooled. The cops should trust in the legal system they serve and face the consequences of their actions like any other citizen has to. IMO.

What does the military do to sick fucks when they find them?

Introducing SSG Robert Bales. What a shit storm this was. Poor guy came unhinged. Coming from his perspective, can I outright blame him? Honestly, no. After all the bullshit with more than a decade of war and being on numerous deployments, I can't imagine the damage done to his psyche. This should have been a red flag as "Yo, this dude suffered some major loss, we should forcibly retire him or at least give him a real psyche evaluation." Although their "psyche" evals are a joke. Questionnaires on a computer doesn't help understand any individual. It's hard to compare Bales to the officer in question due to the major gap of time in the service, but until they release more info on the officer, all I can assume is that he is SWAT implying some actual combat experience.
Fun fact that has nothing to do with this, saw Bales only once, me and a few others from my squad were tasked with escorting the families he affected by his killing spree. Saw him being escorted by the MPs to the court house on FT Lewis, and I have never seen a more broken man than him. He plead guilty to the killings and is spending the rest of his life breaking bigger rocks into little rocks.

We do actually get some real sick fucks, there was a platoon (or squad? I can't remember, read it in the ARMY Times.) That these dudes thought they were Universal Soldier, cutting off ears and killing people randomly. Those people are sick. Bales, I just pity.

TL:DR We haven't used the death penalty for awhile, we just send them off to FT Leavenworth for permanent work out sessions.

As it stands now, currently, cops have virtually zero chances of being indicted, if indicted they have a 2 in 3 chance of being found not guilty and if convicted only get incarcerated less than 3 in 10 cases.

Sure, unless there is overwhelming evidence. Courts are going to be in favor of the officer unless it's a grotesque misuse of power. They have to get their income somehow, can't get rid of their paper boys.

Using a don't fire unless fired upon ROE wouldn't eliminate the killing of suspects who aren't armed but it adds a layer of ability to punish an officer when they f*ck up and shoot someone.
"Suspect didn't have a weapon, officer"
"Correct"
"And you shot him anyway"
"I thought he had a weapon"
"But you were not fired upon and you fired your weapon in violation of police policy."

In a perfect world, yes this would fly, and in some cases this would be better. With the recording of police I suppose this would actually work. But until body cams become mandatory, it's up to the public to actually catch these incidents. Even then, there is the risk of tampering with evidence, making it that much harder to prosecute, assuming the prosecutor is actually doing his job and not playing favorites.

Still the RoE might pass...might. This is assuming officers are willing to make that risk, they're not the military sadly, so if this was even remotely pushed, guarantee alot of officers would cry foul.

On another note, I can't really fault the officer for using whatever (legal) means he can to avoid prison. Everyone should do that.

Yeah, it's every citizens right. Sadly with the corruption that's pretty blatant at this stage, a trial by jury should really be the only choice.

DirtyDishSoap wrote: Introducing SSG Robert Bales. What a shit storm this was. Poor guy came unhinged. Coming from his perspective, can I outright blame him? Honestly, no. After all the bullshit with more than a decade of war and being on numerous deployments, I can't imagine the damage done to his psyche. This should have been a red flag as "Yo, this dude suffered some major loss, we should forcibly retire him or at least give him a real psyche evaluation." Although their "psyche" evals are a joke. Questionnaires on a computer doesn't help understand any individual. It's hard to compare Bales to the officer in question due to the major gap of time in the service, but until they release more info on the officer, all I can assume is that he is SWAT implying some actual combat experience.
Fun fact that has nothing to do with this, saw Bales only once, me and a few others from my squad were tasked with escorting the families he affected by his killing spree. Saw him being escorted by the MPs to the court house on FT Lewis, and I have never seen a more broken man than him. He plead guilty to the killings and is spending the rest of his life breaking bigger rocks into little rocks.

We do actually get some real sick fucks, there was a platoon (or squad? I can't remember, read it in the ARMY Times.) That these dudes thought they were Universal Soldier, cutting off ears and killing people randomly. Those people are sick. Bales, I just pity.

TL:DR We haven't used the death penalty for awhile, we just send them off to FT Leavenworth for permanent work out sessions.

I'm with you on the Bold. We human beings are real good at making war but we aren't really built for it psychologically I don't think.

I remember the first time I ever went paintballing. It was awesome, so much fun. Big teams, lots of paintballs flying everywhere, from every direction. I was with one of my brothers, we were taking cover behind a barricade, paintballs exploding on the plywood and zipping past our heads. I look at him and I say "This is crazy man! I don't know how people could do this in real life with real bullets!"
My brother looks at me and says- "Yeah, I know, that's why they make rockets, bombs and mortars!"
That insight made me groan.

Compared to soldiers in a war zone, the cops got it easy.

dirtydishsoap wrote: Yeah, it's every citizens right. Sadly with the corruption that's pretty blatant at this stage, a trial by jury should really be the only choice.

At this point, I think this might be about the only way to really start changing the perception. Cops gotta start being made examples of and thrown into prison. At least, any cop who shoots an unarmed citizen needs to go to trial to be judged by a jury of his peers. Cops who shoot unarmed suspects and give the standard "I felt my life was in danger" line doesn't fly anymore. In today's climate, with today's information, it just too often sounds and looks insincere at best. Juries can get to the truth of the matter if given an opportunity.

A second officer, Emile Hollant, has been suspended without pay. Reason: He gave false information to investigators. Hollant is the ranking officer at the scene and he is caught on recording telling dispatch that he watched the guy with the grey shirt (the autistic guy) load a gun. A hell of a feat especially since there was no gun.

My brother looks at me and says- "Yeah, I know, that's why they make rockets, bombs and mortars!"
That insight made me groan.

I prefer that over IEDs. Nothing makes my sphincter pucker up real quick than stepping on one and having it not go off. At least I can hear the bombs being dropped. An IED? Just one misstep could equal a wheel chair or me eating dirt. Pretty sure everyone that was with me shared my fear.

At least I can laugh about it now that I'm the only retard that has sat on one without going off.

-Edit And perfect example of that Blue Code in the works. Love it. Glad he was caught and suspended, hopefully fired.

Annnnnnd this happens.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/ ... rding-law/

TL:DR The public doesn't have access to Dash Cam and Body Cams unless a court order is given in NC.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:

At least I can laugh about it now that I'm the only retard that has sat on one without going off.

That's a good way to get your ass blown off!

dirtydishsoap wrote:-Edit And perfect example of that Blue Code in the works. Love it. Glad he was caught and suspended, hopefully fired.

[/quote]


Oh I think he'll get fired at the very least. The North Miami police department don't seem to be fucking around on this one. To their credit they aren't conducting the investigation, they turned it over to the Florida Department of Law enforcement. That's a good sign.

The suspension without pay is not a good sign for Hollant though. That always comes before a police officer is outright fired and often comes before charges are filed.
Fired isn't good enough IMO, if Hollant was trying to cover up the shooting. If he was doing that he best be going to trial and then behind bars if found guilty.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:Annnnnnd this happens.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/ ... rding-law/

TL:DR The public doesn't have access to Dash Cam and Body Cams unless a court order is given in NC.

Kinda defeats the whole transparency thang. Idiots.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:

My brother looks at me and says- "Yeah, I know, that's why they make rockets, bombs and mortars!"
That insight made me groan.

I prefer that over IEDs. Nothing makes my sphincter pucker up real quick than stepping on one and having it not go off. At least I can hear the bombs being dropped. An IED? Just one misstep could equal a wheel chair or me eating dirt. Pretty sure everyone that was with me shared my fear.

At least I can laugh about it now that I'm the only retard that has sat on one without going off.

-Edit And perfect example of that Blue Code in the works. Love it. Glad he was caught and suspended, hopefully fired.

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.