I guess they were upset about them not stopping by the police station and giving everyone else a turn with the girl...

I don't know how to parse this post unless it's just clumsy trolling.

It's a twofer. Could go either way.

It might be ironically pointing out that if you or someone you care about isn't personally affected by police misbehavior then you don't give a damn about it because it isn't a problem for anyone you think matters.

Or it might not be ironic.

Just callous and ignorant.

'Murica!

This happened six years ago.

My point here is, let's not make this worse than it is. I'm certain NYPD, in common with most employers, takes a dim view of employees having sex while on duty, especially if it happens in an employer-owned vehicle within public view. Several issues are getting blurred here.

First, the officers in Brooklyn are defending themselves against criminal charges by contending they did not rape the woman in their custody, they had consensual sex with her. At some point, having admitted to having consensual sex with a woman in their custody -- essentially a prisoner -- and then failing to follow through with her arrest as a result, they will undoubtedly face department charges and quite likely lose their jobs. The article cited earlier noted that New York State has made it a criminal offense for a prison or jail corrections officer to have sexual contact with an inmate. That the legislature has never passed a law making it specifically illegal for a police officer to have sex with a person in their custody -- the legislators probably didn't think it was necessary for one thing -- but now such a law has already been introduced.

I wonder why they didn't include police officers and people under arrest or detention. Under Swedish law the comparable offence doest explicitly cover any specific profession but instead prohibits anyone from "making someone partake in or endure a sexual act by seriously abusing their position of authority".

It might not be absolutely illegal but pressuring detainees into sex would be illegal no matter your profession.

Not even that. ACCEPTING sexual favors is wrong, even if the person in authority doesn't "pressure" the other person to do it.

If a male officer arrests a woman, and she offers a blow job if he'll let her go, his response must be no. Does not matter if he suggested it or she did, the answer is NO.

Charming lad.

St. Louis is voting on the following proposition today:
(discussion)

There are times I really wish we could vote:

• Yes
• No.
• No and here is why: __________

I am all for paying the police better and getting more officers, but I also want some much needed reform to go along with that money. Hell, I'd be cool with raising the sales tax much more if it meant reforms could go along with it.

Which passed, pretty much as expected.

Do you have any doubts about the woman's story? It sounds like the evidence that the cops raped their prisoner is overwhelming. The very fact that the cops told the victim's friends not to follow them, instead of "You can pick her up at the precinct. We'll show you the way," is compelling.

I've been following a local story that, in magnitude, doesn't even approach some of the worst abuses that St. Louis has had.

St. Louis Man Ticketed After Honking at Cop Stopped at a Green Light

tl;dr:

1. Car A is just sitting when the light turns green.
2. Car B beeps his horn.
3. Car A moves forward a bit and then stops again.
4. Car B beeps again.
5. Car A starts inching forward really slowly.
6. Car B lays on the horn.
7. Car A turns out to be a cop in an unmarked vehicle who then pulls Car B over for 45 minutes with much rage and threats, the first minute of which is caught on video.

Plot twist: Car A driver, Detective Steve Burle, has a history of being sued for excessive force (or being present when it happened and not intervening) and is on the Force Investigation Unit, which is responsible for investigating when police kills or injures someone.

That second article agrees with my position:

The magnitude may not be great, but it shows even in minor instances there are police officers who behave appallingly and out and out bullies unfit for the job.

Side story: Turns out the driver is a former coworker of one my current coworkers. I'm trying to get more information about whether he is, in fact, a "********** jackoff".


eta: Apparently, he is not.

I would think that the terms in the man's sobriquet would be mutually exclusive, or at least require a pause. Is the officer totally unlearned in the art of wooing?

Referring back to the events following the Stockley verdict:

Federal judge restricts St. Louis police conduct during protests
I note, again, how it appears to take independent review to get any accountability.

Why do people keep doing this?

Doing what? playing some other persona on Halloween? Isn't that the idea?

And it wasn't actually "blackface" within the meaning of the Act.

Just for a change, some Australian cops who tried to force a miscarriage of justice after beating someone up

https://i.stuff.co.nz/world/australi...e-about-554000

They are still employed and one has been promoted.

This article helps to explain why the police feel confident in shootings. They were traned that way and have legal support

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/u...ater.html?_r=1

"Training Officers to Shoot First, and He Will Answer Questions Later

The shooting looked bad. But that is when the professor is at his best. A black motorist, pulled to the side of the road for a turn-signal violation, had stuffed his hand into his pocket. The white officer yelled for him to take it out. When the driver started to comply, the officer shot him dead.
The driver was unarmed.

Taking the stand at a public inquest, William J. Lewinski, the psychology professor, explained that the officer had no choice but to act.
“In simple terms,” the district attorney in Portland, Ore., asked, “if I see the gun, I’m dead?”
“In simple terms, that’s it,” Dr. Lewinski replied.
When police officers shoot people under questionable circumstances, Dr. Lewinski is often there to defend their actions. Among the most influential voices on the subject, he has testified in or consulted in nearly 200 cases over the last decade or so and has helped justify countless shootings around the country.
His conclusions are consistent: The officer acted appropriately, even when shooting an unarmed person. Even when shooting someone in the back. Even when witness testimony, forensic evidence or video footage contradicts the officer’s story."

What about this one?

https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/939014159726870530

http://www.tmz.com/2017/12/07/mesa-p...daniel-shaver/

Warning. Graphic killing just after four minutes in. You may want to stop before that.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.3269247

Jesus Christ.

I have no words for this one.

I haven't watched that for that reason however.

You know what - I think that should be considered as evidence.

Inside a secret 2014 list of hundreds of L.A. deputies with histories of misconduct

:mad:

The footage is from a hotel corridor. I understand the victim and his colleague were in town for a business conference. They were in the business of pest control. They took a couple of clients back to their hotel room for supper and had pizza and a drink. Maybe enough to be slightly tipsy, and why not, they weren't driving.

Part of their stock-in-trade was pellet guns, I imagine for shooting rodents. They had a couple with them and took them out to show them to the clients. Someone else saw this through the window and thought that guns were being brandished. They called the cops.

The victim was essentially being given a series of ever-more-impossible commands that amounted to a sadistic game of Twister. Cross your ankles behind you, raise your arms straight above your head, crawl towards me. Of course he lowered his arms because you can't crawl in that position - not even if you're sober and the victim probably wasn't. He was pleading, "Please don't shoot me." The cop shot him. As far as I can see the victim was white and respectable-looking, so it wasn't even racism.

It gets worse.

Cops show up, shoot your dog. And order you to behead it.

Oh, wait -- they gave him options.

Warning: Autoplay.

As I keep saying, skin color does not offer immunity, having some dude screaming and pointing a gun at you is nerve-wracking, and the worst indicator isn't skin color, it's mental illness.

But yeah, that's often what it's like. "Put your hands up. Do it or I'll shoot you!!! Now crawl!" Guess wrong, and you may be dead. Ask "Which one?" and you may be dead. So, now what?

And again, this isn't about cops, it's about bad cops. Some cops in the US are legit heroes. The issue is, what do we do with the guys who scream contradictory commands at people while pointing guns at them?

But it was okay to drive up, jump out of a car, and blast Tamir Rice, right? Seriously, this was a white male. Now, let this be a black or native Amdedrican male, and think of how this would play out then.

(As for the idiot demanding that the dog's owner cut off his head - that, at least, is obvious. I wouldn't even know how to do so, an would have no tool to do it with.)

(Null)

You left out the part where he did reach toward his waistband.

Because that was the only way he could comply with the latest instructions yelled at him by a man with a gun, who at the kindest interpretation is trigger-happy.

I'd be panicking and not thinking straight if that happened to me.

Yes, and far too little oversight of far too many police forces allows bad cops to remain bad. Some are incompetent and might be appropriately trained, others should never have been cops in the first place and should never be put in positions of trust or power.

Define "crawl," and explain to us how one can crawl without ever moving a hand backwards relative to one's waist.

Not only should the psycho piece of **** have been convicted of murder, the other officer should be tried for not shooting the murderous killer standing next to him who is obviously a threat to every citizen in the hotel.

The victim panics and is trying his best to cooperate even when he does briefly put his hands behind his back. That cop scum is a murderer and to not convict him empowers more murder by the police.

At the point the cop shoots, Shaver is doing exactly what he was told to do by murdering scum cop and he is crawling towards him.

That's because you aren't a US citizen - they are so used to having guns that having one pointed at them couldn't cause any reasonable person to panic or be nervous.

Plus of course the murdered man broke the cardinal rule - he did something, and doing anything including doing nothing can put a cop in fear of his life....

The way the cop acted must be in at least part because he was confident he would never be, or at least highly unlikely convicted of murder or other serious charge.

He also exhibited what has been posted about before, that the police are being trained to kill, everything is a threat and give a man a hammer and everything becomes a nail.

What is wrong with the USA that it is ignoring the rise of killer cops?

When I was watching the crawling dead video, I was thinking "gosh, I hope he doesn't.... oh ******" The rest of that thought was "... automatically pull his pants up" which is (I think) the exact automatic action he took, without thinking.

5 or so years ago, I had 5 police officers pointing their guns at me because it was reported I "brandished a long gun" while waiting outside my wife's doctors office. They asked to search my van, which I of course allowed. When they got to where the umbrella I "brandished" I automatically, without thought, reached for it. Fortunately, the police just shouted to stop, I did and apologized. I'm lucky the officer from the video wasn't covering me.

He was wearing jogging pants with an elasticated waist, they had ridden down due to him crawling towards his executioner. In a last act to save what little dignity his executioner had left him, he attempts to pull up his trousers to save embarrassment and in case the executioner is offended or misinterprets what message his bare arse might be sending.

It didn't matter the **** shot him anyway. The **** had been waiting for a moment like this all his career. The inscription on his gun is proof of this as it was a self fulfilling prediction.

What a truly ********** up society.

Cops are trained to kill because everyone is potentially a threat. It's the price that the US pays for their gun laws, exactly the same as mass shootings, accidental shootings, and domestic violence shootings.

The fact is that none of this should have had to happen. Cops shouldn't be so scared that they have to treat suspects as armed to the teeth until they know otherwise, but because a number of suspects are armed to the teeth and are willing to use those weapons (over 10,000 a year) then a Cop has to act as if every suspect they encounter could be one of those 10,000 people or risk finding out the hard way. This means that sudden moves can wind up being fatal.

If US Society wants to prevent police shootings, then they need to take gun control seriously, and they need to take getting guns out o the hands of those most likely to shot at cops. Until then it's the price of freedom.