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.

(Slate)   Bad: Man spends a decade in jail for a murder he didn't commit because of police misconduct. Better: a panel awards hims a $5 million settlement. Fark me: of which he is very unlikely to get a single dime now that Detroit has filed for bankruptcy   (slate.com) divider line 89
    More: Sad, police misconduct, Dwayne Provience, Detroit, jury, murders, convicts, Buick Regal, unsecured creditor  
•       •       •

4099 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Dec 2013 at 6:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-13 08:07:34 PM  

Truther: enry: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: ZAZ: he might be able to persuade the bankruptcy court to allow him to pursue a claim against the police officer.

Yeah, but that police officer probably has very little in the way of assets. Which makes a good case for police officers having to carry private malpractice insurance the way that doctors do.

[imokaywiththis.jpg]

Who'd want to take a crappy paying (compared to doctors) job if that was required?


Because -- hey, free tasers!
 
2013-12-13 08:24:16 PM  
Coming off the heels of that Affluenza garbage from earlier this week, this article was incredibly depressing.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-12-13 08:36:27 PM  
Wow. This guy really has a lot of luck.

/all bad
 
2013-12-13 08:38:46 PM  
Whatever happened to getting a judgement, then an order to pay or forfeit? Roll a semi up to city hall and all the rest of the city buildings and start loading up. Have a fire sale. Might not be 5 mil, but a damn sight better than zero.
 
2013-12-13 08:42:43 PM  

Phoenix87ta: MJMaloney187: 5 million for nearly a decade in the slammer? That works out to nearly half a million per year. That ridiculous.

Really?  How so?


Personally I'd take a decade of liberty and enjoying the best years of my life with my family over $5 million. His incarceration didn't just affect him, it was a hardship on his kids and will almost certainly have harmed them.
 
2013-12-13 08:51:49 PM  
Maybe they'll give him the Pistons.
 
2013-12-13 08:55:29 PM  

OgreMagi: I just got a brilliant idea.  Expand what I posted about this particular situation.  For any case where the police are found to have been involved in misconduct, the payout is taken from ALL police officers employed at that precinct, even if only one or two cops are actually guilty.  When your check suddenly gets fifty bucks lighter each month for the next ten years, maybe you'll stop turning a blind eye to the crimes committed by your "brothers".


I think that would make the thugs more likely to hide the crimes of their fellow thugs.
 
2013-12-13 08:56:47 PM  
Maybe the city could just buy him a house, which should come out to about $200. With a nice garage for another $5.
 
2013-12-13 08:57:55 PM  

BrassArt: Whatever happened to getting a judgement, then an order to pay or forfeit? Roll a semi up to city hall and all the rest of the city buildings and start loading up. Have a fire sale. Might not be 5 mil, but a damn sight better than zero.


A bankruptcy can wipe out a judgement.  Any debtee has a chance to present to the bankruptcy court a reason why the debtor should not be allowed to get out of the debt.  If there is nothing the court can force to be liquidated, then the debtor gets nothing.  If he wants any money, he'll have to go back to court.  Whether it be the bankruptcy court or go through with the lawsuit, he'll have to go back to court.  If he doesn't, he won't likely get a dime.
 
2013-12-13 08:59:24 PM  
Isn't this really OCPs problem?
 
2013-12-13 09:13:09 PM  

Truther: enry: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: ZAZ: he might be able to persuade the bankruptcy court to allow him to pursue a claim against the police officer.

Yeah, but that police officer probably has very little in the way of assets. Which makes a good case for police officers having to carry private malpractice insurance the way that doctors do.

[imokaywiththis.jpg]

Who'd want to take a crappy paying (compared to doctors) job if that was required?


Pay isn't the issue.  The issue is cops (or doctors) being liable for the decisions they make that can affect the lives of others.  Doctors have a specialized skill.  Cops do to to a degree, and perhaps they should be paid more, but then again, they're government employees and we all know that government employees are lazy good for nothings that hide behind their union.

/if the pay is so crappy, why be a teacher?
 
2013-12-13 09:30:31 PM  

OnlyM3: AngryDragon


Jesus Christ this city is a shiathole Democrat utopia.


Apparently it's the conservative utopia, since they wanted to give $0 to the auto industry in the area, which would have made things 1,000 times worse. Or perhaps conservatives knw how a city can pay bills with a tax base consisting of 0 people?
 
2013-12-13 09:40:23 PM  
How often does this happen?

Better a thousand innocent men are locked up, than one guilty man roam free.
 
2013-12-13 09:46:08 PM  
enry
Truther: enry: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: ZAZ: he might be able to persuade the bankruptcy court to allow him to pursue a claim against the police officer.
Yeah, but that police officer probably has very little in the way of assets. Which makes a good case for police officers having to carry private malpractice insurance the way that doctors do.
[imokaywiththis.jpg]
Who'd want to take a crappy paying (compared to doctors) job if that was required?
Pay isn't the issue. The issue is cops (or doctors) being liable for the decisions they make that can affect the lives of others. Doctors have a specialized skill. Cops do to to a degree, and perhaps they should be paid more, but then again, they're government employees and we all know that government employees are lazy good for nothings that hide behind their union.


This is one thing that those who feel both ways about police on Fark can agree upon.
Clearly subsidizing police misbehavior through the taxpayers is not work. Since police can have a huge amount of influence of people's lives, they should be able to be sued for making mistakes that are not allowed by the institutions they work for.

If police do something that are not allowed to do in their job description, they can personally be sued. If they make too many mistakes, their insurance gets too expensive.

How do we make a push for this to happen as a collection of people? How many people agree with my thoughts here?
 
2013-12-13 09:46:13 PM  

haemaker: This was a settlement.  Since Detroit is reneging on its part of the settlement, the case can be reopened and it will go to a jury.  He's not out of the money, just delayed.

The bankruptcy trustee will probably find it cheaper to pay him then to fight it in court and most likely lose big.  He can put pressure to speed up the payout by reopening the case.


He's an unsecured creditor. In bankruptcy cases, secured creditors get their payouts first, and unsecured creditors join the queue, in order of claim filing. Just because this guy's claim was recently filed doesn't mean there aren't ten thousand others with more priority; likely, there are. And anyone with a secured claim, no matter how petty, gets their bite of the apple first.

So any creditor with liens on the city property gets their money first. And anyone unsecured who filed and won a settlement in, say, 2000, is ahead of this guy, as is anyone who won a settlement for unpaid parking tickets last week.

The wheels of justice grind small and queer, unfortunately, and merit has nothing to do with who wins. Just timing.
 
2013-12-13 09:47:17 PM  

Puffy McBooze: OgreMagi: I just got a brilliant idea.  Expand what I posted about this particular situation.  For any case where the police are found to have been involved in misconduct, the payout is taken from ALL police officers employed at that precinct, even if only one or two cops are actually guilty.  When your check suddenly gets fifty bucks lighter each month for the next ten years, maybe you'll stop turning a blind eye to the crimes committed by your "brothers".

I think that would make the thugs more likely to hide the crimes of their fellow thugs.


Not if they are excluded from the payments for stepping forward.
 
2013-12-13 10:00:00 PM  
Read an interesting article a few weeks back that said Detroit shouldn't be in bankruptcy since as far as cash flow and debt servicing goes, it can manage. Basically the whole thing comes down a bunch of bad paper that if counted one way has the city under water, but counted another, and the city is while not exactly fine not bankrupt either.
 
2013-12-13 10:00:28 PM  
Puffy McBooze: OgreMagi: I just got a brilliant idea. Expand what I posted about this particular situation. For any case where the police are found to have been involved in misconduct, the payout is taken from ALL police officers employed at that precinct, even if only one or two cops are actually guilty. When your check suddenly gets fifty bucks lighter each month for the next ten years, maybe you'll stop turning a blind eye to the crimes committed by your "brothers".
I think that would make the thugs more likely to hide the crimes of their fellow thugs.


They already are. Any time a cop calls another cop on their bullshiat they get forced out. Pull over and arrest someone going over 100mph in traffic, get forced out. Nearly pull over the gov's suv, get forced out. Try to stop an unnecessary beatdown, get forced out. Another cop turns over a cop shoots a turkey on the hood, gets forced out.

The boys in blue have already circled the wagons and is forcing out the cops willing to stand up against their less ethical co-workers, forcing out the sociopaths is the logical first step.
 
2013-12-13 10:11:12 PM  

MJMaloney187: 5 million for nearly a decade in the slammer? That works out to nearly half a million per year. That ridiculous.


Do you mean ridiculously low or ridiculously high? I hope you mean low. It's not like they're just compensating him for lost wages... the dude lost nearly a decade of his life and probably went through some unspeakable shiat.
 
2013-12-13 10:31:40 PM  

Corvus: Lot of employees are f'd out of their pension they worked decades to get. Lots of people are being f's over.


Reason #8637 not to work for the government. In the private sector, you actually have to produce a product/service that has a market value greater than what it cost to produce. You really are "making money." Working for the government, you just get paid an arbitrary amount, even if you produce nothing. If you spend your life producing nothing, don't be surprised if you have no pension.
 
2013-12-13 10:32:25 PM  

Target Builder: Phoenix87ta: MJMaloney187: 5 million for nearly a decade in the slammer? That works out to nearly half a million per year. That ridiculous.

Really?  How so?

Personally I'd take a decade of liberty and enjoying the best years of my life with my family over $5 million. His incarceration didn't just affect him, it was a hardship on his kids and will almost certainly have harmed them.


Yeah, I'd read MJMaloney187's comment as "He should've gotten less."  Turns out I was wrong.
 
2013-12-13 10:33:46 PM  

Enemabag Jones: enry
Truther: enry: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: ZAZ: he might be able to persuade the bankruptcy court to allow him to pursue a claim against the police officer.
Yeah, but that police officer probably has very little in the way of assets. Which makes a good case for police officers having to carry private malpractice insurance the way that doctors do.
[imokaywiththis.jpg]
Who'd want to take a crappy paying (compared to doctors) job if that was required?
Pay isn't the issue. The issue is cops (or doctors) being liable for the decisions they make that can affect the lives of others. Doctors have a specialized skill. Cops do to to a degree, and perhaps they should be paid more, but then again, they're government employees and we all know that government employees are lazy good for nothings that hide behind their union.

This is one thing that those who feel both ways about police on Fark can agree upon.
Clearly subsidizing police misbehavior through the taxpayers is not work. Since police can have a huge amount of influence of people's lives, they should be able to be sued for making mistakes that are not allowed by the institutions they work for.

If police do something that are not allowed to do in their job description, they can personally be sued. If they make too many mistakes, their insurance gets too expensive.

How do we make a push for this to happen as a collection of people? How many people agree with my thoughts here?


The reason cops traditionally were protected from individual suits was because of the risk of some asshole deciding to take out his personal grievance against a cop for no reason. You know, like "I got a traffic ticket! I'll sue that motherf*cker!" and the fear that cops would then be afraid to enforce any laws because of the risk of lawsuits.

I think malpractice insurance for police--like there is for doctors and lawyers--would be a great way to address that problem. There would be some tweaks that would need to be put in place to prevent the obvious frivolous nonsense like I mentioned above (we don't need scofflaws cashing in by suing cops for every speeding ticket and assumed 'harassment" because a cop drove by his house), but if cops were protected in equity from lawsuits, then they wouldn't need to be protected at the legislative level.

Perhaps one way to prevent frivolous suits would be to put a loser-pays clause into the insurance--such that if the case is found to be groundless, the person who brought the suit must pay the court costs. Also, the police could not be represented by city attorneys--they would need to be represented by the insurer's attorney. This would prevent the city from having any vested interest in the outcome of the case, and cut down on interference from the department. Make this a case between the citizen and the cop, not the citizen and the department.

UNLESS, I think, there is clear evidence that the whole department was in fact involved, in which case it should be a 1983 color-of-authority suit, but that's different. Yes?
 
2013-12-13 10:55:20 PM  

MJMaloney187: 5 million for nearly a decade in the slammer? That works out to nearly half a million per year. That ridiculous.


shiat I will go to prison for a supposed "murder" for 500K a year.
 
2013-12-13 10:58:31 PM  

dave2198: OnlyM3: AngryDragon


Jesus Christ this city is a shiathole Democrat utopia.

Apparently it's the conservative utopia, since they wanted to give $0 to the auto industry in the area, which would have made things 1,000 times worse. Or perhaps conservatives knw how a city can pay bills with a tax base consisting of 0 people?


Funny, since I thought Detroit hadn't elected a Republican in half a century and is regularly cited as one of the most liberal cities in the country.

In any event, I'd say de Blasio's claim that the whole country will one day embrace liberalism doesn't hold water simply because people are aware that Detroit is worse off in real life than it was in Robocop.  It's amazing how a city could be run into the ground like that, though one wonders how likely such a scenario may be on a broader scale, like at the state or even federal levels.  Will the $17 trillion+ debt continue to increase at such a rate that may one day lead to this nation's solvency?  It may not take views that even rival those of de Blasio to lead down that path.

/Better start learning your Chinese people.
 
2013-12-13 11:05:36 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Read an interesting article a few weeks back that said Detroit shouldn't be in bankruptcy since as far as cash flow and debt servicing goes, it can manage. Basically the whole thing comes down a bunch of bad paper that if counted one way has the city under water, but counted another, and the city is while not exactly fine not bankrupt either.


My guess is if you count it "the other way", it limits the amount the people running Detroit can skim.  By going through the bankruptcy, they can actually maximize the opportunities to steal.
 
2013-12-13 11:05:38 PM  
The article isn't terribly clear, can one of the Fark Lawyers explain to me why he couldn't just sue the city again? Other than paying his own lawyers, of course.
 
2013-12-13 11:06:22 PM  
Gyrfalcon,
The reason cops traditionally were protected from individual suits was because of the risk of some asshole deciding to take out his personal grievance against a cop for no reason. You know, like "I got a traffic ticket! I'll sue that motherf*cker!" and the fear that cops would then be afraid to enforce any laws because of the risk of lawsuits.
I think malpractice insurance for police--like there is for doctors and lawyers--would be a great way to address that problem. There would be some tweaks that would need to be put in place to prevent the obvious frivolous nonsense like I mentioned above (we don't need scofflaws cashing in by suing cops for every speeding ticket and assumed 'harassment" because a cop drove by his house), but if cops were protected in equity from lawsuits, then they wouldn't need to be protected at the legislative level.
Perhaps one way to prevent frivolous suits would be to put a loser-pays clause into the insurance--such that if the case is found to be groundless, the person who brought the suit must pay the court costs. Also, the police could not be represented by city attorneys--they would need to be represented by the insurer's attorney. This would prevent the city from having any vested interest in the outcome of the case, and cut down on interference from the department. Make this a case between the citizen and the cop, not the citizen and the department.
UNLESS, I think, there is clear evidence that the whole department was in fact involved, in which case it should be a 1983 color-of-authority suit, but that's different. Yes?


First, there are procedures. Someone has a stroke and they don't know if it is a bleeder or a clot. X specific tests are performed. Doctor has it wrong and patient dies. If there are outlined procedures that x test was done once and doctor followed procedure enough per protocol, he is in the clear.

I don't see why that could not be a test for civil liability for police. Here is the issue, who makes the decision that procedure was or wasn't followed. Not the same civilian review boards we have now. Maybe grand juries, something else.

It is easy if a cop was holding back evidence and this could be established, or there is video of a cop slamming someone being questioned against the wall for no established good reason. I would also protect police from being sued by a lawyer who speeds too way too much.

There would still be 'he said-she said 'abuse, but if there is an outlier doing stupid shiat caught on video his ass would eventually be gone. Like the cop that kicked the driver having a seizure in the head. The rest is for issues regarding the recording of police functions.

Another kink would be if it did fit into departmental policy, and the guy was tased 20x, then the department could be sued for having some flimsy implementation of how they serve their citizens.

Interesting you talked about city attorney defending cops. Remember Tony Bologna? I read that the city was tired of defending him and the union stepped in and hired an attorney when the city refused. I bet Tony would not be around if he had to pay some sort of liability insurance.

If the entire department is involved, what is a police department then a collection of people. Remember that LA sheriff's dept issue where you knew more then I did. Was it Baca? Even if half of the department is acting like a bunch of shiatheads, it still could be handled through suing specific LEOs handing specific acts.

The loser pays, maybe. I am not hung up on it either way.
 
2013-12-13 11:11:57 PM  
Enemabag Jones:

Snip, since it's too much to quote.

I pretty much agree.  If the cop is following procedure, the city should defend him and pay.  If the cop violated rights and the show can show he violated procedure, the cop is stuck with the lawsuit.  If what the cop did violat rights, but was still standard procedure for the department, the city is on the hook.  For that last example, cops doing stop and frisk in NYC are violating rights and the Constitution, but it is the written policy of New York City PD, so the city is on the hook and should be paying out the nose.
 
2013-12-13 11:12:33 PM  
Wow, my typing skills went to hell this evening.
 
2013-12-13 11:35:43 PM  

DeathCipris: MJMaloney187: 5 million for nearly a decade in the slammer? That works out to nearly half a million per year. That ridiculous.

shiat I will go to prison for a supposed "murder" for 500K a year.


It's not like they told him they'd let him out in 10 years and give him $5M. He would have lost hope and thought his life was over. That's some serious shiat to have to go through. Plus the guy is ten years older. Imagine if you were ten years older right now and had nothing but horror to show for it.
 
2013-12-13 11:48:39 PM  

Enemabag Jones: I don't see why that could not be a test for civil liability for police. Here is the issue, who makes the decision that procedure was or wasn't followed. Not the same civilian review boards we have now. Maybe grand juries, something else.

It is easy if a cop was holding back evidence and this could be established, or there is video of a cop slamming someone being questioned against the wall for no established good reason. I would also protect police from being sued by a lawyer who speeds too way too much.


Actually, there are existing policy & procedure manuals, so yeah, the issue is who decides whether procedure was followed. Why are you anti the civilian review boards that already exist? Is it that they have no power to indict? If so, then either yes, go straight to a grand jury, or else just give the review board the power to directly indict.

My reason for wanting to allow mass suits, like in the current case against Baca and the LASD is simply to avoid multiple suits where an entire department is involved at multiple levels over a long period of time. (Like what happens with class action suits) Although I think your idea would lead to fewer incidents of that over time, as more and more cops were dealt with on a one-to-one immediate basis. For instance, in the current LASD case, if people had been able to sue the cops individually and be assured of getting their day in court, then we would not be seeing nearly the number of federal indictments due to some of the officers already having been weeded out. But until that day comes, we'd need a means to expedite or consolidate cases. (Courts like to do that.)

As far as recording of police functions, I'd like to see a state or even Federal law that would simply require recording of police activity in any situation where police are interacting with the public in an official capacity. I think you said yesterday that the officers should not have the ability to switch their own cameras on and off, and that's a great idea. Digital storage means that 24/7 recording would not be a problem (as opposed to how it used to be with VHS tapes holy crap) so there is no reason a patrol car could not have a locked recorder in the trunk, for instance.

My only concern with allowing citizens to sue is the difference between a CIVIL suit (which is for money damages) and a CRIMINAL suit (which subjects the officer to prison time for offenses); still, given how rarely cops are punished at all, hitting them in the pocketbook might be a better way to start.
 
2013-12-14 12:07:44 AM  
We should let Democrats rule the whole country. Detroit is such a good model for us.
 
2013-12-14 01:47:30 AM  

Brostorm: Blah blah blah

 blah Union blah blah blah.  Blah blah blah blah union blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

*chugs twice*
 
2013-12-14 01:51:00 AM  

DrPainMD: Corvus: Lot of employees are f'd out of their pension they worked decades to get. Lots of people are being f's over.

Reason #8637 not to work for the government. In the private sector, you actually have to produce a product/service that has a market value greater than what it cost to produce. You really are "making money." Working for the government, you just get paid an arbitrary amount, even if you produce nothing. If you spend your life producing nothing, don't be surprised if you have no pension.


So then private sector people ought to have pensions, right?  Tell that to the people who used to work for Hostess.  (Oh, wait, they're Union Thugs, and Union Thugs don't deserve pensions because it's always the Union Thugs' fault and never that of those who "borrowed" from the pension funds.  How *does* one go broke selling junk food to Americans, anyway?)
 
2013-12-14 06:38:28 AM  
He's fine. If the city doesn't pay as part of a settlement, they are then in violation of said settlement. He can then go right ahead an sue the city, police, ect...
// preferably after they get out of bankruptcy.
 
2013-12-14 08:05:28 AM  
Just let them write an IOU. I'm sure the city won't remain bankrupt for very long.
 
2013-12-14 09:00:13 AM  

06Wahoo: dave2198: OnlyM3: AngryDragon


Jesus Christ this city is a shiathole Democrat utopia.

Apparently it's the conservative utopia, since they wanted to give $0 to the auto industry in the area, which would have made things 1,000 times worse. Or perhaps conservatives knw how a city can pay bills with a tax base consisting of 0 people?

Funny, since I thought Detroit hadn't elected a Republican in half a century and is regularly cited as one of the most liberal cities in the country.

In any event, I'd say de Blasio's claim that the whole country will one day embrace liberalism doesn't hold water simply because people are aware that Detroit is worse off in real life than it was in Robocop.  It's amazing how a city could be run into the ground like that, though one wonders how likely such a scenario may be on a broader scale, like at the state or even federal levels.  Will the $17 trillion+ debt continue to increase at such a rate that may one day lead to this nation's solvency?  It may not take views that even rival those of de Blasio to lead down that path.

/Better start learning your Chinese people.


I don't think the party of the leadership matters much when the entire city's tax base goes away due to the near-collapse of an entire industry. Or perhaps you think Republicans know of a magical way to squeeze money out of rocks? Even if you institute Draconian cuts, there still wouldn't be a large enough tax base to support even minimal services such as police and fire protection for a city that size.
 
2013-12-14 01:43:18 PM  
Gyrfalcon
Actually, there are existing policy & procedure manuals, so yeah, the issue is who decides whether procedure was followed. Why are you anti the civilian review boards that already exist? Is it that they have no power to indict? If so, then either yes, go straight to a grand jury, or else just give the review board the power to directly indict.
My reason for wanting to allow mass suits, like in the current case against Baca and the LASD is simply to avoid multiple suits where an entire department is involved at multiple levels over a long period of time. (Like what happens with class action suits) Although I think your idea would lead to fewer incidents of that over time, as more and more cops were dealt with on a one-to-one immediate basis. For instance, in the current LASD case, if people had been able to sue the cops individually and be assured of getting their day in court, then we would not be seeing nearly the number of federal indictments due to some of the officers already having been weeded out. But until that day comes, we'd need a means to expedite or consolidate cases. (Courts like to do that.)
As far as recording of police functions, I'd like to see a state or even Federal law that would simply require recording of police activity in any situation where police are interacting with the public in an official capacity. I think you said yesterday that the officers should not have the ability to switch their own cameras on and off, and that's a great idea. Digital storage means that 24/7 recording would not be a problem (as opposed to how it used to be with VHS tapes holy crap) so there is no reason a patrol car could not have a locked recorder in the trunk, for instance.
My only concern with allowing citizens to sue is the difference between a CIVIL suit (which is for money damages) and a CRIMINAL suit (which subjects the officer to prison time for offenses); still, given how rarely cops are punished at all, hitting them in the pocketbook might be a better way to start.


Regarding the dual liability, in principle it was even wrong for OJ. When it becomes illegal to use against anyone, lets reconsider, but right now I will not give police more rights then non-police.

Don't think that I am out to screw any cop that makes a single mistake, but I do want police abuse stopped and we need to stop the legal tools and exceptions used by dirty LEOs abusing the system. The reason dirty LEOs do not see justice is the DAs depend on cops to be able to win. Unless people are outraged and DAs have to go after cops, they will get special treatment. the function of going after police needs to be moved to a state or federally assigned DA whose job it is to go after cops.

I think a doctor might be liable for for both civil and criminal charges if someone dies due to decisions that are also illegal. Why not police?
 
2013-12-14 09:08:38 PM  

OgreMagi: I just got a brilliant idea.  Expand what I posted about this particular situation.  For any case where the police are found to have been involved in misconduct, the payout is taken from ALL police officers employed at that precinct, even if only one or two cops are actually guilty.  When your check suddenly gets fifty bucks lighter each month for the next ten years, maybe you'll stop turning a blind eye to the crimes committed by your "brothers".


That system guarantees that cops continue to cover up each other's crimes via the blue wall.

Suddenly, the decision to report your buddies takes on a personal financial risk, countervailing whatever thin sliver of integrity was urging them to report the guy.
 
Displayed 39 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report