3 Arkansas officers involved in violent arrest are identified

[KG1]

I've never been put in the position to have to arrest a cop.

C'mon Frank. You should've been able to find one because there are scores of examples out there. They're everywhere!!

 

[qwerty]

That Epicenity chick reminds me of a former member.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I've never been put in the position to have to arrest a cop.

You hurt my feelings once, though.

 

[Destro]

I think it might be helpful to delineate two ideas.

Bad Cops. Bad cops are cops that are generally lousy at their job. At best they are lazy and stay out of the way. At worse they get people killed. They violate policy, they have poor tactics, they needlessly escalate situations, they are the kinda cops that you avoid backing up because you don't want in their crap, and that you try and clear your call ASAP before they show up to "back" you up. Almost everyone here probably has someone like that at their job in one way or another. NONE of what I just mentioned is necessarily illegal. Being a crummy cop isn't a crime per se.

Crooked Cops. Crooked cops are ones who knowingly break laws, intentionally violate rights, steal, engage in corruption, use their position of power for illicit gain, sometimes called CRIMINALS.

In my personal experience, not all "bad cops" are crooked, but every "crooked cop" I knew was a bad cop.

A crooked cop has knowledge, skills, and abilities beyond an average criminal. One of those is how to act around good cops..aka the people who are going to turn you in/arrest you the second they find out.

As I said, every "crooked cop" Ive known so far was a bad cop anyway. If there was a way I could get them out of my sphere I would seize on it. Unfortunately they just did dumb stuff around me, not criminal stuff.

Every dang department isn't Rampart or Training Day

 

[Denny347]

As you say, I could give scores of links to videos but I feel strongly that they would be dismissed "ambiguous" or "rare" so I'll not waste my time. They are there, in their abundance for any that wish to see.

Oh, I've reviewed my fair share. That used to be part of my job before I was promoted. I've fallen into that trap of watching a video and reacting based on my emotional response, "that looked terrible." Only to have access to the details NOT shown in the video, what did the officers know, see, understand, what did the suspect do, have, etc, none-of-which are captured on the video. Having access to ALL the information allows me to make an informed determination if the force used violated Graham v. Connor's objectively reasonableness test. Most internet videos ARE ambiguous. We take it as "lead information only" pending supporting details.

 

[Denny347]

How many LEOs have you arrested?

In my 25yrs as an LEO (21 on the street and 4 at our training academy), I've arrested 0 police officers. I've never come across a situation where I had to. I've NEVER seen conduct that warranted it. I have assisted the arrest of a couple of police recruits in training, 1 for showing up drunk, and one for an armed robbery they committed on a day off......

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

C'mon Frank. You should've been able to find one because there are scores of examples out there. They're everywhere!!

I'm sure there might be. But I've never been put in that position.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

That Epicenity chick reminds me of a former member.

Yeah, now that you mention it.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

You hurt my feelings once, though.

If hurting feelings was a crime, I should be many years into a life sentence.

 

[Route 45]

That Epicenity chick reminds me of a former member.

Not sure about that, but with 63 posts, mostly in the "pride month" thread and this one, I'm sensing that "she" is not here to talk about guns.

 

[Epicenity]

Not sure about that, but with 63 posts, mostly in the "pride month" thread and this one, I'm sensing that "she" is not here to talk about guns.

I joined this forum because I am from Indiana and I use guns as necessary. I am not an enthusiast. I don't engage very much because of the extreme amount and expansiveness of the bigotry and misogyny here. Your post is loaded with both. I do not feel welcome at all here because of a lot (not all) of you are extremist debate-bros who seem to be foaming at the mouth to make sure you hate all the right people and everyone knows about it.

I usually chime-in when someone says something extremely ignorant or inflammatory to help refine my "arguments" when I encounter regressive bigots in person.

Also, use mostly air rifles which aren't really firearms. I have a sanctuary for native, cavity-nesting birds so high-end air rifles allow me to dispatch invasive bird species without stressing the native birds or making sloppy shots the injure rather than kill.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I joined this forum because I am from Indiana and I use guns as necessary. I am not an enthusiast. I don't engage very much because of the extreme amount and expansiveness of the bigotry and misogyny here. Your post is loaded with both. I do not feel welcome at all here because of a lot (not all) of you are extremist debate-bros who seem to be foaming at the mouth to make sure you hate all the right people and everyone knows about it.

I usually chime-in when someone says something extremely ignorant or inflammatory to help refine my "arguments" when I encounter regressive bigots in person.

Also, use mostly air rifles which aren't really firearms. I have a sanctuary for native, cavity-nesting birds so high-end air rifles allow me to dispatch invasive bird species without stressing the native birds or making sloppy shots the injure rather than kill.

Wow. How the flip do you get bigotry, hatred, and misogyny all out of a simple post suggesting that you're not on this forum to talk about guns, especially when you pretty much say yourself that that's true?

 

[Epicenity]

Oh, I've reviewed my fair share. That used to be part of my job before I was promoted. I've fallen into that trap of watching a video and reacting based on my emotional response, "that looked terrible." Only to have access to the details NOT shown in the video, what did the officers know, see, understand, what did the suspect do, have, etc, none-of-which are captured on the video. Having access to ALL the information allows me to make an informed determination if the force used violated Graham v. Connor's objectively reasonableness test. Most internet videos ARE ambiguous. We take it as "lead information only" pending supporting details.

Here's where I feel like most of the "evil" occurs. If there isn't a crystal-clear video with clean audio that starts before all of the parties involved got out of bed that morning (yes I'm being facetious here) then we rely, it seems, solely on the testimony of the officers involved which is often tailored or falsified as necessary to exculpate the offending LEO. IMHO the police the cover for one another, the DAs and prosecutors don't look too hard into it goes away. Video evidence is helping with this.

My reluctance to post anything, or even say anything for that matter feels justified by the couple of debate-bros jumping on my "scores" comment. For those that are just trying to win an argument, any single scrap of doubt or bad choice of word will be evidence that the entire point is invalid.

Reluctantly (very reluctantly), I'll post a video I saw this morning. I didn't go looking for it, I didn't cherry pick it, it is however very representative of things I see daily. Illegal entry by police, unnecessary force, unprofessionalism, battery, attempt to spoliate evidence (officer illegally search phone and deleting the video that captured their crime), writing a false(inaccurate report), more than one agency involved cooperating smoothly together in a coverup.

I can foresee some of the objections now, but a major reason I feel this is a great example is because if the cop had successfully deleted the video then a lot of people in this thread would be convinced nothing untoward happened and it was just "cop bashing".

I work in a profession that demands conformance to a high ethical standard and we don't tolerate incompetence or poor ethics. I wish law enforcement was run that way.

Here's the video. I could post these all day every day.

 

[Epicenity]

Wow. How the flip do you get bigotry, hatred, and misogyny all out of a simple post suggesting that you're not on this forum to talk about guns, especially when you pretty much say yourself that that's true?

Because my IQ is higher than room temperature.


"mostly in the "pride month" thread and this one, I'm sensing that "she" is"

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Because my IQ is higher than room temperature.


"mostly in the "pride month" thread and this one, I'm sensing that "she" is"

Well, for us simple morons who don't know how to comb through every word and insinuation and pick out 10 different flavors of insults in every single sentence addressed our way that doesn't 100% confirm every single idea we hold, would you be so kind as to elaborate and explain where the hatred and bigotry is in that statement?

 

[KellyinAvon]

This is about to get interesting. I’ll be back at like lunch.

 

[Rookie]

IN!!!

 

[TheGrumpyGuy]

 

[Epicenity]

I think it might be helpful to delineate two ideas.



Every dang department isn't Rampart or Training Day

1. I appreciate your candor.

2. I don't think that.

 

[KG1]

This is about to get interesting. I’ll be back at like lunch.

Yep. Getting a little spicy in here. Too much hot sauce.