If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Westword)   "He kept hitting my fist with his face" says cop who will not be charged   (blogs.westword.com) divider line 215
    More: Asinine, Alex Landau, Denver  
•       •       •

14485 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 8:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



215 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-07 03:51:11 PM

Onkel Buck: Dick Gozinya: Get used to it people. This is what happens when you militarize your police forces. I bet all three of those cops are ex military. Years of brainwashing them into believing everyone and everything is a threat, coupled with hyper-agressive responses to percieved threats results in this kind of shiat happening. Like Rambo said, "you cant just turn it off."

I was told by an Army buddy that I served with that some police dept's dont like hiring vets or former MPs because they cant de-program them very well. Cops are supposed to protect and serve, military not so much. I dont know if there was any truth to his statement. But it seemed to make some sense. But as always there is an asshole in every crowd, FARK is full of em!


really? cause from the previous fark threads on police brutality/corruption, farkers were claiming vet recruits were farking things up law enforcement because they weren't corruptible...
 
2013-03-07 03:54:43 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Fissile: It's not just Denver, it seems that most cops today are out of control sociopaths.  Have a look at how this Jersey cop punched a fat chick in the face when she touched his arm.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/cop-punches-wom an -video-envy-night-club-youtube-video-shows-elizabeth-new-jersey-office r-punching

That chick didn't just touch the cop's arm.  He was in a violent struggle and she deliberately interfered with his ability to protect himself and effect arrest.  I'd have decked her under the circumstances.


Then you would also deserve jail time for assault after you struck her.

She was trying to stop the officer from assaulting the man in question, you can see it in the video.

It's perfectly natural to protect yourself or people you care about when somebody is attempting to physically harm them, like the cop was attempting to do and managed to successfully do to the female in the video.

You should really seek professional help for your anger and aggression issues if you would have also punched the female in the video. You really do have issues.
 
2013-03-07 04:24:06 PM
lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-03-07 04:27:20 PM

BarkingUnicorn: That chick didn't just touch the cop's arm. He was in a violent struggle and she deliberately interfered with his ability to protect himself and effect arrest. I'd have decked her under the circumstances.


Jeez, cops are such pussies these days.
 
2013-03-07 04:28:21 PM
According to the police report he was resisting arrest.
 
2013-03-07 04:44:44 PM

StoPPeRmobile: [www.movieactors.com image 266x198]
[www.details.com image 460x317]


I think I'm missing a meme here or something - I'm really not sure what you're saying here.

Masta Kronix: Ohh please Police Abuse and Corruption isn't even a matter of debate anymore.

Anyone arguing against the existence of wide spread police abuse and the resulting cover ups are either ignorant to the situation as a result of not doing any sort of research into the issue or is being disingenuous towards the discussion.

Which are you being?

Seeing as you freely admit you can't find a single instance of an officer being fired or charged as a result of a fellow officers testimony all the while officers have been charged and convicted of Police Abuse in extreme circumstances, I'm going to go with the later, you're being disingenuous towards the discussion because it suits your world view.



Huh? What post of mine are you referring to?

How is it being "disingenuous towards the discussion" to publically admit that I found it difficult to find counterexamples against liam76's proposition?

Or are you objecting to me mentioning the fact that I, personally, have had positive interactions with the police in the past? Hint: saying this is not at all the same as "arguing against the existence of wide spread police abuse and the resulting cover ups".

Did you get my response mixed up with someone else in this thread?
 
2013-03-07 05:04:39 PM
His face was resisting arrest. Come on guys.
 
2013-03-07 05:18:16 PM

not5am: Onkel Buck: Dick Gozinya: Get used to it people. This is what happens when you militarize your police forces. I bet all three of those cops are ex military. Years of brainwashing them into believing everyone and everything is a threat, coupled with hyper-agressive responses to percieved threats results in this kind of shiat happening. Like Rambo said, "you cant just turn it off."

I was told by an Army buddy that I served with that some police dept's dont like hiring vets or former MPs because they cant de-program them very well. Cops are supposed to protect and serve, military not so much. I dont know if there was any truth to his statement. But it seemed to make some sense. But as always there is an asshole in every crowd, FARK is full of em!

really? cause from the previous fark threads on police brutality/corruption, farkers were claiming vet recruits were farking things up law enforcement because they weren't corruptible...


Guess I should have mentioned it was almost 15 years ago when he told me this and that his brother, who relayed the info to him, was a cop outside of Chicago, if that has any bearing on this. But if what you are saying is true then maybe vets are bringing some integrity back to the badge.
 
2013-03-07 05:20:29 PM
mimg.ugo.com

"Well well well well well well well!"
 
2013-03-07 07:05:03 PM

draypresct: StoPPeRmobile: [www.movieactors.com image 266x198]
[www.details.com image 460x317]

I think I'm missing a meme here or something - I'm really not sure what you're saying here.


So it's obscure?

Here ya go.
 
2013-03-07 10:16:15 PM

Kyoki: [www.ttellc.net image 809x607]

That's Tiffany Middleton on the left with Chevy Chase during the 2008 DNC. I posted this in the last thread on this subject. I'm not even a bit surprised at this decision and the DPD actions.


Where's Dorner when we need him?
 
2013-03-07 11:05:16 PM

dready zim: Onkel Buck: Remember gun grabbers when you are done with your latest crusade, these are the only assholes who will still be allowed to have guns. Be careful what you wish for

But at least they won`t be able to use the excuse "We thought he was going for his gun" anymore.

We don`t have this problem here in the UK, where your `horror` scenario is happening i.e. cops have guns and the public don`t. Do you know what effect that has? The police don`t go crazy if they think you may have a weapon and beat the shiat out of you `just in case` and they can`t use that as an excuse so less police are violent. People don`t pull guns on cashiers `just because` etc etc etc

It`s strange but in countries where guns are restricted for the public NONE of the outcomes predicted by gun nuts happen.

You know, it`s almost as though they lie to keep their guns...


Hate to break it to you but the UK has a ton more violent crime because the criminals know that their victims are unable to defend themselves. If you think the UK is safe because you have no guns you need to come back to reality.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Br it ain-US.html

"
According to the figures released yesterday, 3.6 per cent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crime in 1999 - second only to Australia, where the figure was 4.1 per cent.

Scotland had a slightly lower rate of violence, at 3.4 per cent.

In the U.S., only 2 per cent of the population suffered an assault or robbery."
 
2013-03-08 05:06:24 AM

pbass98: dready zim:
But at least they won`t be able to use the excuse "We thought he was going for his gun" anymore.

RTFA-- they charged him with going for one of the cops' guns. They never claimed he had a gun. And this BS charge would work just fine in ol' Blighty, despite your enlightened gun laws.


Nah, the cops keep the guns in the boot of the car. Nice try though.
 
2013-03-08 05:34:03 AM

redhook: dready zim: Onkel Buck: Remember gun grabbers when you are done with your latest crusade, these are the only assholes who will still be allowed to have guns. Be careful what you wish for

But at least they won`t be able to use the excuse "We thought he was going for his gun" anymore.

We don`t have this problem here in the UK, where your `horror` scenario is happening i.e. cops have guns and the public don`t. Do you know what effect that has? The police don`t go crazy if they think you may have a weapon and beat the shiat out of you `just in case` and they can`t use that as an excuse so less police are violent. People don`t pull guns on cashiers `just because` etc etc etc

It`s strange but in countries where guns are restricted for the public NONE of the outcomes predicted by gun nuts happen.

You know, it`s almost as though they lie to keep their guns...

Hate to break it to you but the UK has a ton more violent crime because the criminals know that their victims are unable to defend themselves. If you think the UK is safe because you have no guns you need to come back to reality.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Br it ain-US.html

"
According to the figures released yesterday, 3.6 per cent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crime in 1999 - second only to Australia, where the figure was 4.1 per cent.

Scotland had a slightly lower rate of violence, at 3.4 per cent.

In the U.S., only 2 per cent of the population suffered an assault or robbery."


Nobody claims that removing guns will remove all crime. That is a gun nut strawman. I was talking about the nightmare scenario where the criminals all have guns and hold the country to ransom because people don`t have guns to protect themselves. Your figures are non-gun crime which is sort of the point. Compare murder rates and that is where you will see the difference. People with guns are deadly.

UNODC murder rates most recent year

4.2  Northern America
1.2  United Kingdom


violence of 2 compared to 3.6 yet a murder rate of 4.2 compared to 1.2.

Nearly TWICE (3.6/2=1.8) the violence yet a THIRD (4.2/1.2=3.5) of the deaths? WOW, it looks like a lack of guns keeps people alive by a factor of SIX (3.5*1.8=6.3)

So having guns in a society means you are 6.3 times more likely to be killed (when you compare the US and the UK)

Hmmm, it`s almost as though gun nuts lie to try to keep their guns.
 
2013-03-08 11:16:20 AM

dready zim: redhook: dready zim: Onkel Buck: Remember gun grabbers when you are done with your latest crusade, these are the only assholes who will still be allowed to have guns. Be careful what you wish for

But at least they won`t be able to use the excuse "We thought he was going for his gun" anymore.

We don`t have this problem here in the UK, where your `horror` scenario is happening i.e. cops have guns and the public don`t. Do you know what effect that has? The police don`t go crazy if they think you may have a weapon and beat the shiat out of you `just in case` and they can`t use that as an excuse so less police are violent. People don`t pull guns on cashiers `just because` etc etc etc

It`s strange but in countries where guns are restricted for the public NONE of the outcomes predicted by gun nuts happen.

You know, it`s almost as though they lie to keep their guns...

Hate to break it to you but the UK has a ton more violent crime because the criminals know that their victims are unable to defend themselves. If you think the UK is safe because you have no guns you need to come back to reality.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Br it ain-US.html

"
According to the figures released yesterday, 3.6 per cent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crime in 1999 - second only to Australia, where the figure was 4.1 per cent.

Scotland had a slightly lower rate of violence, at 3.4 per cent.

In the U.S., only 2 per cent of the population suffered an assault or robbery."

Nobody claims that removing guns will remove all crime. That is a gun nut strawman. I was talking about the nightmare scenario where the criminals all have guns and hold the country to ransom because people don`t have guns to protect themselves. Your figures are non-gun crime which is sort of the point. Compare murder rates and that is where you will see the difference. People with guns are deadly.

UNODC murder rates most recent year

4.2  Northern Amer ...


Just take a look at Mexico. Some of the worlds most strict gun laws, controlled by the cartels.
 
Displayed 15 of 215 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report