Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cops: No Snarky Nor Positive Title

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Sicatoka
    replied
    I'm saying set a new and tougher standard for cops.
    I said "tighten up criminal law around on-duty cops. Set a higher standard, and make it hurt."

    For cops, make reckless damage to civilian property a criminal offense. Probably get fewer police chases and police shots fired. And that's what you want, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • WeAreNDHockey
    replied
    Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post


    Set a new standard:
    An on-duty cop, that performed an act that did not criminally break the law, is exempt from civil litigation for the same act. Then tighten up criminal law around on-duty cops. Set a higher standard, and make it hurt.
    The only way idiots like you ever learn is by experience, and even then your brain is so full of mush that I doubt it would matter.

    How would you like it if someone did something to you that cost you your livelihood or was otherwise an egregious financial, emotional or physical burden but it wasn't a criminal act? You gonna spend the rest of your life stoically living in the poor house with a barrel and some straps for clothes so you can own us libs? No, you're going to sue the **** out of them because that is your right and it is the responsible, sane thing for you to do.

    Try this on for size, Chief. The next time you go in for routine, but needed, surgery there is a paperwork snafu and instead of having, say, your gall bladder removed they take your one good kidney. You now have to live the rest of your life on dialysis. And if your standard was the law, I guess you couldn't sue the doctors, the hospital or anyone else.

    Some of your posts make Hershel Walker look like a Rhodes Scholar.

    Leave a comment:


  • Swansong
    replied
    Thinking that police - and lawmakers and judges - would allow any of that to happen is like insisting that we just build unicorns that can instantly beam us to work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Holy crap...I am actually glad you quoted that because it is becoming clear Sicatoka has spent too much time around EMPs and fried his ****ing brain.

    Leave a comment:


  • unofan
    replied
    Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post


    Set a new standard:
    An on-duty cop, that performed an act that did not criminally break the law, is exempt from civil litigation for the same act. Then tighten up criminal law around on-duty cops. Set a higher standard, and make it hurt.
    I take back what I said before. You really are that stupid.
    Last edited by unofan; 07-07-2022, 06:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Sicatoka
    replied
    Originally posted by unofan View Post

    Jesus H Christ in a handbasket.

    Ok, Holiday Inn Express guest, go find your nearest Grisham novel and let's walk through the holes in your scenario.

    What is the burden of proof required to be criminally convicted?

    What is the burden of proof required to be liable in a civil trial?

    If those are not the same, is there a gap where one could be liable/guilty in one court but not the other?

    In a criminal trial, does the jury ever return a verdict of "innocent"?

    Does a failure to convict in a criminal trial mean the defendent didn't commit a wrongful act?

    Is the victim a named party in a criminal case?

    If not, who is?

    Does the victim have their own interests separate from whoever else may be a named party in a criminal case?

    Are there reasons the named parties in a criminal case may resolve the case without a conviction having nothing to do with the defendant's actual innocence or guilt?

    Now use your allegedly healthy brain, and the answers to those questions, and figure out for yourself why your scenario is bad and you should feel bad.

    Set a new standard:
    An on-duty cop, that performed an act that did not criminally break the law, is exempt from civil litigation for the same act. Then tighten up criminal law around on-duty cops. Set a higher standard, and make it hurt.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
    Let's face it - most cops are bastards. Assuming you follow the 10-70-20 rule of most organizations, the 5-10% who could effect genuine change often don't last long on the force due to internal resistance and not-so-subtle threats to their career path from the department brass and the FOP. The idea of "hero" cops is propped up by an excessive number of pro-cop movies and TV shows. Those cops are needles in a haystack of apathetic mediocrity - the 70% for whom it's just a steady job that didn't require much in the way of academics - and actual shitbirds, the worst 20% for whom it's about the power of the badge.
    All you need to do is look at the Floyd Murder. One of the cops was a newb who joined the force to try and fix things from the inside...and the first time he had a chance to do it he stood by and watched a ****ing psycopath kill a man in broad daylight for passing a bad $20 bill and being stoned.

    Being a cop is no different than anything else...power corrupts and the corruption rots the entire barrel almost instantaneously.

    Leave a comment:


  • unofan
    replied
    Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post

    In nuke power school you just failed that question on the test; the instructor's note said "ATQ".

    Answer the question.

    You didn't even get a RAWR (right answer, wrong reason) or RAWQ (right answer, wrong question).


    PS - I still use those on exams I grade.
    Jesus H Christ in a handbasket.

    Ok, Holiday Inn Express guest, go find your nearest Grisham novel and let's walk through the holes in your scenario.

    What is the burden of proof required to be criminally convicted?

    What is the burden of proof required to be liable in a civil trial?

    If those are not the same, is there a gap where one could be liable/guilty in one court but not the other?

    In a criminal trial, does the jury ever return a verdict of "innocent"?

    Does a failure to convict in a criminal trial mean the defendent didn't commit a wrongful act?

    Is the victim a named party in a criminal case?

    If not, who is?

    Does the victim have their own interests separate from whoever else may be a named party in a criminal case?

    Are there reasons the named parties in a criminal case may resolve the case without a conviction having nothing to do with the defendant's actual innocence or guilt?

    Now use your allegedly healthy brain, and the answers to those questions, and figure out for yourself why your scenario is bad and you should feel bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post

    They get named but it is the city/state that pays not them or the union. If cops pensions/funding were on the line they would kill a lot less Black People.
    overnight

    Leave a comment:


  • The Sicatoka
    replied
    Originally posted by unofan View Post

    I refuse to believe you're this dumb. So I say again, go seek medical treatment because you must have had a stroke.
    In nuke power school you just failed that question on the test; the instructor's note said "ATQ".

    Answer the question.

    You didn't even get a RAWR (right answer, wrong reason) or RAWQ (right answer, wrong question).


    PS - I still use those on exams I grade.
    Last edited by The Sicatoka; 07-07-2022, 12:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • FadeToBlack&Gold
    replied
    Let's face it - most cops are bastards. Assuming you follow the 10-70-20 rule of most organizations, the 5-10% who could effect genuine change often don't last long on the force due to internal resistance and not-so-subtle threats to their career path from the department brass and the FOP. The idea of "hero" cops is propped up by an excessive number of pro-cop movies and TV shows. Those cops are needles in a haystack of apathetic mediocrity - the 70% for whom it's just a steady job that didn't require much in the way of academics - and actual shitbirds, the worst 20% for whom it's about the power of the badge.

    Leave a comment:


  • rufus
    replied
    Originally posted by unofan View Post

    I refuse to believe you're this dumb. So I say again, go seek medical treatment because you must have had a stroke.
    I don't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

    My guess is that in most instances it is both the individual cop or cops and the employer city/county that are named as defendants.
    They get named but it is the city/state that pays not them or the union. If cops pensions/funding were on the line they would kill a lot less Black People.

    Leave a comment:


  • unofan
    replied
    Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post

    If it's not criminal at root, what are cops being sued civilly for?
    I refuse to believe you're this dumb. So I say again, go seek medical treatment because you must have had a stroke.

    Leave a comment:


  • SJHovey
    replied
    Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post

    Is that the cops being sued or their employers? Generally civil settlements or verdicts are paid for by the public employer (or really more accurately, by taxpayers) and the public employer is the entity that is sued, not the individual cop. In most cases, qualified immunity prevents the individual from being the subject of the suit and the responsible party is the employing agency.

    Fact is, the cops need to be the ones responsible. They want to be treated like the professionals they claim to be, buy malpractice insurance.
    My guess is that in most instances it is both the individual cop or cops and the employer city/county that are named as defendants.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X