What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Cops: No Snarky Nor Positive Title

Status
Not open for further replies.
unofan said:
I refuse to believe you're this dumb. So I say again, go seek medical treatment because you must have had a stroke.
Click to expand...

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:
The Sicatoka said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 fucking 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.
 
unofan said:
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.
Click to expand...


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 Sicatoka said:
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.
Click to expand...

I take back what I said before. You really are that stupid.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
The Sicatoka said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 fuck 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.
 
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?
 
Police chases shouldn't exist at all because they're a waste of resources and are as dangerous as firing a gun at a suspect in a mall.
 
The Sicatoka said:
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?
Click to expand...

Putting aside the absurdity of your premise, are you suggesting that we criminalize certain non-criminal actions, such as anti-union actions? Or are you suggesting that cops should get away with anti-union acts without repercussion?

For example, Supervisor Cop fires Subordinate Cop for trying to form a union. In your scenario, does Supervisor Cop go to jail AND get sued? Or neither?

FWIW, this example comes from my first trial (which should tell you that there was no qualified immunity).
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Seems like a measured, deliberate, rational response by the police.
Click to expand...

Never know who might be holed up in that house, armed to the teeth with assault rifles. Best to err on the side of precaution.

Wouldn't it be amazing if these cops didn't have to fear they'd encounter armed suspects every time they go out on a call? Nah, that's crazy talk.
 
rufus said:
Never know who might be holed up in that house, armed to the teeth with assault rifles. Best to err on the side of precaution.

Wouldn't it be amazing if these cops didn't have to fear they'd encounter armed suspects every time they go out on a call? Nah, that's crazy talk.
Click to expand...

That ship has sailed as well. Let's face it. If for any reason you have to be involved with the police in any way for any reason you should feel lucky to be alive after the encounter.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
That ship has sailed as well. Let's face it. If for any reason you have to be involved with the police in any way for any reason you should feel lucky to be alive after the encounter.
Click to expand...

I know. I just can't understand how cops aren't in favor of more restrictive gun laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top