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.

(WBIR Knoxville)   Knox County sheriff photographed choking man receives permanent unpaid vacation from the department. THIS IS AN OUT... wait, what?   (wbir.com) divider line 249
    More: Followup, Knox County, booms and busts, police officers, holidays  
•       •       •

16143 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Apr 2014 at 7:05 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-28 11:19:47 AM  

browntimmy: LazyMedia: All the whining about the cops "bullying" the drunks fails to recognize that 800 drunk college kids is about one idiot getting froggy from being a full-blown riot with cop cars turned over and set on fire. This doesn't just happen a lot on college campuses, it almost ALWAYS happens. It also doesn't look like that old, fat cop is choking the kid, just holding him by the neck (probably with his thumbs on pain pressure points, so if the kid starts to be a problem, he can control him with just a little squeeze).

There's nothing good about a block party with hundreds of drunk teenagers and kids in their early '20s milling about drunk on the street. You want to have a party for 30-40 people, fine; but 800? That's just a riot waiting to happen.

This is one of the better trolls I've seen here in a while. Nice job.


I'm dead serious. Here's what I'm talking about. College kids are fine in small groups, but you get a bunch of drunken, 20-something dudebros out on the street, you really want to have the water cannons ready. It's not that the individuals are planning to cause trouble, it's just that big crowds (especially big, drunken crowds) have a different psychology, most of it bad. Here's the science.
 
2014-04-28 11:20:14 AM  
The new anchor is farking hot!
 
2014-04-28 11:21:32 AM  

jumac: yukichigai: Egoy3k: I never understand the arrests in these situations.  Kids have a loud party, cops break it up, kids get charged with public intoxication.  Well they wouldn't be out in public unless you broke up their party now would they?  I mean I can completely understand breaking up the party but unless you have them on drug possession or supplying alcohol to a minor or something how can you possibly arrest someone for being drunk in public right after you forced them to go out in public?

[newspaper.li image 310x452]

In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.

I'm happy to say Nevada not only has no Public Intox laws, there's actually a state law that says "it is illegal for any jurisdiction within Nevada to make public intoxication illegal".  No, seriously.  It was of course the finest law bought and paid for by the casinos, but it's still a good law to have.  We're the only one that has it as far as I know.  Plenty of states don't make public intoxication a crime, but more should take the "and none of you cities/counties can either" approach.

my brother got in trouble a few years back cause he was walking home form a bar after having a few beers and some cop stopped him a few blocks away and nailed him cause he blew to high or something.


Why would he have blown at all?

I can't imagine any reason to consent to an alcohol test of any kind while walking.
 
2014-04-28 11:21:39 AM  

jumac: yukichigai: Egoy3k: I never understand the arrests in these situations.  Kids have a loud party, cops break it up, kids get charged with public intoxication.  Well they wouldn't be out in public unless you broke up their party now would they?  I mean I can completely understand breaking up the party but unless you have them on drug possession or supplying alcohol to a minor or something how can you possibly arrest someone for being drunk in public right after you forced them to go out in public?

[newspaper.li image 310x452]

In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.

I'm happy to say Nevada not only has no Public Intox laws, there's actually a state law that says "it is illegal for any jurisdiction within Nevada to make public intoxication illegal".  No, seriously.  It was of course the finest law bought and paid for by the casinos, but it's still a good law to have.  We're the only one that has it as far as I know.  Plenty of states don't make public intoxication a crime, but more should take the "and none of you cities/counties can either" approach.

my brother got in trouble a few years back cause he was walking home form a bar after having a few beers and some cop stopped him a few blocks away and nailed him cause he blew to high or something.


Probably used too much teeth.
 
2014-04-28 11:24:26 AM  

gweilo8888: Private_Citizen: Well, did you really expect them to find a black boy in Knox County Tennessee?

Given that Knox County is around 9% black, only a little behind the 12% national average, it wouldn't be that hard.


Knoxville is 17 percent black, but the UT student body is 7 percent, and most of the residents in the Fort Sanders neighborhood are UT students.
 
2014-04-28 11:24:39 AM  
img.fark.netts4.mm.bing.net

The only thing he missed was jabbing him in the eyes and stomping him on the foot...yight yight! Whoobooboobooboo!
 
2014-04-28 11:27:24 AM  

April Bond: Being a girl maybe I don't know the mentality.  But why don't the good cops, if there are only a few bad apples, take the few bad ones out back and "explain" that they are messing it up for the rest of us?


Because the "good ones" just make themselves targets at that point.
 
2014-04-28 11:27:51 AM  

EdNortonsTwin: The new anchor is farking hot!


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-04-28 11:30:20 AM  
It's a start. What about the police who sat there and watched it happen?
 
2014-04-28 11:30:33 AM  

grinding_journalist: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: SpectroBoy: Let's not gloss over the fact that NONE of the other cops are stopping him. Two of them are holding the HANDCUFFED suspect while the third cop is choking him.

If I'm the sheriff, all 3 are canned and referred for criminal charges.

And you'd be a single-term sheriff.


They should all be single term sheiffs
 
2014-04-28 11:31:46 AM  

Iworkformsn: It's a start. What about the police who sat there and watched it happen?


They got reimbursed.
 
2014-04-28 11:35:51 AM  
Police departments would fair a lot better to the public if these egregious acts of violence where properly taken care of and officers dismissed.

But no. They have to protect the people in the force that give them a bad name. Apparently cops are less intelligent than I thought.
 
2014-04-28 11:42:52 AM  

peterthx: yukichigai:  It's because drunks have the habit of acting like complete assholes in public and are often a danger to themselves and others.


redmid17: yukichigai: Egoy3k: Disorderly conduct covers everything that public intoxication should.


as previously stated...
 
2014-04-28 11:44:51 AM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: They should all be single term sheiffs


Definitely- I feel like any elected official shouldn't be allowed to serve more than one term in any office, at any level of government. Before anyone bemoans elected officials in that sense lacking experience, experience in this context definitely means "knowledge of the system sufficient to utilize your position for personal gain".
 
2014-04-28 11:50:32 AM  

grinding_journalist: teenage mutant ninja rapist: They should all be single term sheiffs

Definitely- I feel like any elected official shouldn't be allowed to serve more than one term in any office, at any level of government. Before anyone bemoans elected officials in that sense lacking experience, experience in this context definitely means "knowledge of the system sufficient to utilize your position for personal gain".


Who would spend the time and effort to get elected to a mediocre-paying job that guaranteed they'd be unemployed in four years and didn't let them get friendly with any businesses to line up a future job? Only financially independent power-hungry muscleheads would pursue the position of sheriff in that case.
 
2014-04-28 11:51:06 AM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: April Bond: Being a girl maybe I don't know the mentality.  But why don't the good cops, if there are only a few bad apples, take the few bad ones out back and "explain" that they are messing it up for the rest of us?

Because the "good ones" just make themselves targets at that point.


Same reason "good priests" don't out the pederasts.
The culture has been reduced to it's own worst nightmare.
 
2014-04-28 11:53:14 AM  

grinding_journalist: teenage mutant ninja rapist: They should all be single term sheiffs

Definitely- I feel like any elected official shouldn't be allowed to serve more than one term in any office, at any level of government. Before anyone bemoans elected officials in that sense lacking experience, experience in this context definitely means "knowledge of the system sufficient to utilize your position for personal gain".


media.npr.org

 
2014-04-28 11:55:26 AM  

snocone: teenage mutant ninja rapist: April Bond: Being a girl maybe I don't know the mentality.  But why don't the good cops, if there are only a few bad apples, take the few bad ones out back and "explain" that they are messing it up for the rest of us?

Because the "good ones" just make themselves targets at that point.

Same reason "good priests" don't out the pederasts.
The culture has been reduced to it's own worst nightmare.


www.wearysloth.com

 
2014-04-28 11:55:58 AM  

grinding_journalist: teenage mutant ninja rapist: They should all be single term sheiffs

Definitely- I feel like any elected official shouldn't be allowed to serve more than one term in any office, at any level of government. Before anyone bemoans elected officials in that sense lacking experience, experience in this context definitely means "knowledge of the system sufficient to utilize your position for personal gain".


This is not a smart statement.  There are some hints that there may be an underlying logic, but the idea proposed would have horrible consequences
 
2014-04-28 12:01:48 PM  

snocone: LazyMedia: SpectroBoy: Let's not gloss over the fact that NONE of the other cops are stopping him. Two of them are holding the HANDCUFFED suspect while the third cop is choking him.


[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

How do you choke somebody by pinching the sides of their neck? It look like he's applying a pain suppression hold to force the little prick to put his hands behind his back.

Compressing the carotid arteries.

Losta johns like to do that to their biatches during sex. Cute.


Many years ago in Portland the police got into some mischief using that hold and making tshirts glorifying the event.http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-4184-1985.html
 
2014-04-28 12:02:19 PM  

lymond01: Why audio is important. This could have been the scenario:

"You muthafarkin' pigs. You're worthless sacks of lard!"
"Yes yes. So we've heard."
"I'm gonna come back and cap all you pigs. Soon as my dad gets me out..."
"Kid, you need to be quiet."
"I'm gonna grab my dad's shotty and hunt you down, your family..."
"Oh fer Christ's sake will someone shut this drunk kid up before he goes from a night in lockup to 20 years..."
"Yah. I bet you have kids too. I'll shoot their little heads right....gack! Gurgle!"


None of which justifies choking someone unconscious. At most you include the statements as a basis for additional charges, cops really like it when you run your mouth. It's all evidence.
 
2014-04-28 12:03:33 PM  

MycroftHolmes: jumac: yukichigai: Egoy3k: I never understand the arrests in these situations.  Kids have a loud party, cops break it up, kids get charged with public intoxication.  Well they wouldn't be out in public unless you broke up their party now would they?  I mean I can completely understand breaking up the party but unless you have them on drug possession or supplying alcohol to a minor or something how can you possibly arrest someone for being drunk in public right after you forced them to go out in public?

[newspaper.li image 310x452]

In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.

I'm happy to say Nevada not only has no Public Intox laws, there's actually a state law that says "it is illegal for any jurisdiction within Nevada to make public intoxication illegal".  No, seriously.  It was of course the finest law bought and paid for by the casinos, but it's still a good law to have.  We're the only one that has it as far as I know.  Plenty of states don't make public intoxication a crime, but more should take the "and none of you cities/counties can either" approach.

my brother got in trouble a few years back cause he was walking home form a bar after having a few beers and some cop stopped him a few blocks away and nailed him cause he blew to high or something.

Probably used too much teeth.


lol
 
2014-04-28 12:17:48 PM  

April Bond: Being a girl maybe I don't know the mentality.  But why don't the good cops, if there are only a few bad apples, take the few bad ones out back and "explain" that they are messing it up for the rest of us?


That's why we don't trust them.

/Because, y'know...they don't  because they apparently don't care.
 
2014-04-28 12:18:40 PM  

socoloco: Police departments would fair a lot better to the public if these egregious acts of violence where properly taken care of and officers dismissed.

But no. They have to protect the people in the force that give them a bad name. Apparently cops are less intelligent than I thought.


Are you hammered or just trying out this "trolling" thing for the first time?
 
2014-04-28 12:20:30 PM  

ransack.: Who would spend the time and effort to get elected to a mediocre-paying job that guaranteed they'd be unemployed in four years and didn't let them get friendly with any businesses to line up a future job? Only financially independent power-hungry muscleheads would pursue the position of sheriff in that case.


I don't see why it'd have to be like this. Maybe a cop gets enough support locally and does a stint as a sheriff; he's liked enough that he gets bumped to alderman or councilman, or decides "elected life" isn't for him and goes back to a supervisory, non-elected position within the police force? Why does it have to be Sheriff->unemployment? I just suggested that they not be allowed to retain their current post.

The fact that the very notion of a drastic change to the system like this is reacted to with such vehement abhorrence, even if it isn't perfect, is part of the problem with the current system's entrenchment. What do you suggest to avoid miniature fiefdoms being set up within the legal confines of governance by entrenched elected officials? If your strategy is "don't vote for them", I hope you realize that ACTUALLY means "throw tons of money at the other guy's campaign to make sure nobody else votes for him either".
 
2014-04-28 12:20:40 PM  

lymond01: Why audio is important. This could have been the scenario:

"You muthafarkin' pigs. You're worthless sacks of lard!"
"Yes yes. So we've heard."
"I'm gonna come back and cap all you pigs. Soon as my dad gets me out..."
"Kid, you need to be quiet."
"I'm gonna grab my dad's shotty and hunt you down, your family..."
"Oh fer Christ's sake will someone shut this drunk kid up before he goes from a night in lockup to 20 years..."
"Yah. I bet you have kids too. I'll shoot their little heads right....gack! Gurgle!"



Even if this is EXACTLY what the drunk said cops ARE NOT allowed to beat you up or choke you out because you hurt their widdle feewings.
 
2014-04-28 12:32:21 PM  

jumac: yukichigai: Egoy3k: I never understand the arrests in these situations.  Kids have a loud party, cops break it up, kids get charged with public intoxication.  Well they wouldn't be out in public unless you broke up their party now would they?  I mean I can completely understand breaking up the party but unless you have them on drug possession or supplying alcohol to a minor or something how can you possibly arrest someone for being drunk in public right after you forced them to go out in public?

[newspaper.li image 310x452]

In all seriousness though Public Intox laws need to go the way of the dodo.  They're a holdover from the days of Prohibition and are the last gasp of the Prohibitionists to keep alcohol illegal somehow.

I'm happy to say Nevada not only has no Public Intox laws, there's actually a state law that says "it is illegal for any jurisdiction within Nevada to make public intoxication illegal".  No, seriously.  It was of course the finest law bought and paid for by the casinos, but it's still a good law to have.  We're the only one that has it as far as I know.  Plenty of states don't make public intoxication a crime, but more should take the "and none of you cities/counties can either" approach.

my brother got in trouble a few years back cause he was walking home form a bar after having a few beers and some cop stopped him a few blocks away and nailed him cause he blew to high or something.


Tell him to aim South of the belly button.
 
2014-04-28 12:32:47 PM  

NormallyTechnos: Fire him now, then refuse to put up a defense to the union arbitration and suit afterwards..

Sheriff looks good, and after his reelection the cop will be back on payroll with back pay.


If I'm not mistaken, don't sheriff deputies around the country serve at the pleasure of the sheriff? I know around here they do. They have to 're-apply' for their jobs every time a new sheriff is elected. 99% of the time, they are retained, because it's a biatch to get new officers. But, sheriffs are allowed to can the whole department when they come in for any reason they wish.
 
2014-04-28 12:33:18 PM  

NormallyTechnos: Fire him now, then refuse to put up a defense to the union arbitration and suit afterwards..

Sheriff looks good, and after his reelection the cop will be back on payroll with back pay.


I'd like to say you're wrong. But I see where you're going with this.
 
2014-04-28 12:33:27 PM  

SpectroBoy: lymond01: Why audio is important. This could have been the scenario:

"You muthafarkin' pigs. You're worthless sacks of lard!"
"Yes yes. So we've heard."
"I'm gonna come back and cap all you pigs. Soon as my dad gets me out..."
"Kid, you need to be quiet."
"I'm gonna grab my dad's shotty and hunt you down, your family..."
"Oh fer Christ's sake will someone shut this drunk kid up before he goes from a night in lockup to 20 years..."
"Yah. I bet you have kids too. I'll shoot their little heads right....gack! Gurgle!"


Even if this is EXACTLY what the drunk said cops ARE NOT allowed to beat you up or choke you out because you hurt their widdle feewings.


If you said that to a cop in front of me and he suddenly choked you into unconsciousness, I would laugh and high-five the Officer, but just a hospital-type zero-contact air-five and not actually touch his glove because that would be assault on an Officer and I ain't tryin to be provokin' a chokin'.
 
2014-04-28 12:34:32 PM  

MycroftHolmes: FullMetalPanda: lucksi: 800 people party? Jeez

"This incident provides a perfect example of why we are in the process of purchasing officer worn body cameras (video and audio recordings) so incidents like this will be fully documented."

Not that is a statement where police gets my respect. We need more of that.

Umm, so they expect this to keep happening and they just want to document it instead of prevent it?

Documenting it is the first step to preventing it.  How can you act on something when you do not know or am not sure what is happening?  Not sure what ground there is to try and pick at the statement above.


Actually it is better than that.  First, the cameras actually change behavior... if you know you are being watched, you act differently.  Second, the bulk of almost any crime is made of repeat offenders.  Cultural issues like police brutality are doubly so.  You don't need to prevent them from committing the first offense... you need to catch them afterwards so they don't commit  the second, third, fourth, etc.
 
2014-04-28 12:36:34 PM  

LazyMedia: gweilo8888: Private_Citizen: Well, did you really expect them to find a black boy in Knox County Tennessee?

Given that Knox County is around 9% black, only a little behind the 12% national average, it wouldn't be that hard.

Knoxville is 17 percent black, but the UT student body is 7 percent, and most of the residents in the Fort Sanders neighborhood are UT students.


Did he say Knoxville / Fort Sanders, or did he say Knox County?

/difficulty: the quote with him saying Knox County is in the first line of this post
 
2014-04-28 12:38:39 PM  

PreMortem: "The investigation will now be turned over to the Knox County Attorney General's Office to determine any further action."

Strangulation= aggravated assault= 3-6 years. But it's a cop we're talking about, so I'm actually surprised he got fired.

This former cop has the looks of an animal torturer.


so now we need a followup with the DA
arrest the ex-cop and charge him with aggravated assault and attempted murder
plea him down to the lesser charge ... he will be out in 3
skinnier and looser
 
2014-04-28 12:40:37 PM  

lymond01: Why audio is important. This could have been the scenario:

"You muthafarkin' pigs. You're worthless sacks of lard!"
"Yes yes. So we've heard."
"I'm gonna come back and cap all you pigs. Soon as my dad gets me out..."
"Kid, you need to be quiet."
"I'm gonna grab my dad's shotty and hunt you down, your family..."
"Oh fer Christ's sake will someone shut this drunk kid up before he goes from a night in lockup to 20 years..."
"Yah. I bet you have kids too. I'll shoot their little heads right....gack! Gurgle!"


Doesn't matter.  Case in point, the video of the Norwegian cops handling a drunk citizen.  The citizen was verbally abusive but the cops laughed it off and told him how stupid he was being.  Tension was defused and nobody got strangled.  Why can't our cops have 1/4 of the class of these guys?
 
2014-04-28 12:44:04 PM  

SomeAmerican: Doesn't matter.  Case in point, the video of the Norwegian cops handling a drunk citizen.  The citizen was verbally abusive but the cops laughed it off and told him how stupid he was being.  Tension was defused and nobody got strangled.  Why can't our cops have 1/4 of the class of these guys?


You sound like you are disrespecting cops. You looking for a chokin'?
 
2014-04-28 12:47:40 PM  
Not to worry I hear LAPD is hiring.
 
2014-04-28 12:48:02 PM  
 
2014-04-28 12:49:34 PM  

SomeAmerican: lymond01: Why audio is important. This could have been the scenario:

"You muthafarkin' pigs. You're worthless sacks of lard!"
"Yes yes. So we've heard."
"I'm gonna come back and cap all you pigs. Soon as my dad gets me out..."
"Kid, you need to be quiet."
"I'm gonna grab my dad's shotty and hunt you down, your family..."
"Oh fer Christ's sake will someone shut this drunk kid up before he goes from a night in lockup to 20 years..."
"Yah. I bet you have kids too. I'll shoot their little heads right....gack! Gurgle!"

Doesn't matter.  Case in point, the video of the Norwegian cops handling a drunk citizen.  The citizen was verbally abusive but the cops laughed it off and told him how stupid he was being.  Tension was defused and nobody got strangled.  Why can't our cops have 1/4 of the class of these guys?


To own a gun in Norway, one must document a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defence, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency and the second is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership.


N O R W A Y     S U C K S
 
2014-04-28 12:56:54 PM  
i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-04-28 01:02:03 PM  

ransack.: To own a gun in Norway, one must document a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defence, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency and the second is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership.


Canada has pretty much the same rules.  There has to be a justification for gun ownership, and transport laws are very strict.  "Concealed carry" doesn't really exist unless you are law enforcement, and even then I'm not entirely sure they can conceal it.

My dad had an old service revolver from an airport security job.  It was a pain in the butt every time we moved because we had to register with local police (when we changed provinces) and have a permit to carry the thing outside of the trunk of your car (ie pack it in checked luggage).http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/hist/con-eng.htm
 
2014-04-28 01:02:53 PM  
 
2014-04-28 01:06:35 PM  
I'm gonna assume anyone supporting this cop has some sort of auto erotic asphyxiation fetish
 
2014-04-28 01:07:05 PM  

ransack.: SomeAmerican: lymond01: Why audio is important. This could have been the scenario:

"You muthafarkin' pigs. You're worthless sacks of lard!"
"Yes yes. So we've heard."
"I'm gonna come back and cap all you pigs. Soon as my dad gets me out..."
"Kid, you need to be quiet."
"I'm gonna grab my dad's shotty and hunt you down, your family..."
"Oh fer Christ's sake will someone shut this drunk kid up before he goes from a night in lockup to 20 years..."
"Yah. I bet you have kids too. I'll shoot their little heads right....gack! Gurgle!"

Doesn't matter.  Case in point, the video of the Norwegian cops handling a drunk citizen.  The citizen was verbally abusive but the cops laughed it off and told him how stupid he was being.  Tension was defused and nobody got strangled.  Why can't our cops have 1/4 of the class of these guys?

To own a gun in Norway, one must document a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defence, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency and the second is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership.


What does Norway's position on gun control have to do with the relationship between their cops and their fellow citizens, and why we couldn't try for that relationship here in America?

I suppose you could argue that American cops instinctively and aggressively overreact because any one they come in contact with could be armed.  If you keep losing coworkers to bullets, you start to think and act like you are in a war zone.  But but I'd hardly say that supports the conclusion that Norway sucks.
 
2014-04-28 01:08:01 PM  
Who's managing the pool for "days until the police union forces them to be rehire him with backpay"? I want to put money on... 90 days.
 
2014-04-28 01:10:21 PM  

SomeAmerican: ransack.: SomeAmerican: lymond01: Why audio is important. This could have been the scenario:

"You muthafarkin' pigs. You're worthless sacks of lard!"
"Yes yes. So we've heard."
"I'm gonna come back and cap all you pigs. Soon as my dad gets me out..."
"Kid, you need to be quiet."
"I'm gonna grab my dad's shotty and hunt you down, your family..."
"Oh fer Christ's sake will someone shut this drunk kid up before he goes from a night in lockup to 20 years..."
"Yah. I bet you have kids too. I'll shoot their little heads right....gack! Gurgle!"

Doesn't matter.  Case in point, the video of the Norwegian cops handling a drunk citizen.  The citizen was verbally abusive but the cops laughed it off and told him how stupid he was being.  Tension was defused and nobody got strangled.  Why can't our cops have 1/4 of the class of these guys?

To own a gun in Norway, one must document a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defence, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency and the second is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership.

What does Norway's position on gun control have to do with the relationship between their cops and their fellow citizens, and why we couldn't try for that relationship here in America?

I suppose you could argue that American cops instinctively and aggressively overreact because any one they come in contact with could be armed.  If you keep losing coworkers to bullets, you start to think and act like you are in a war zone.  But but I'd hardly say that supports the conclusion that Norway sucks.


I smell a Norwegian
 
2014-04-28 01:11:28 PM  
grinding_journalist - Definitely- I feel like any elected official shouldn't be allowed to serve more than one term in any office, at any level of government.

Exactly! I have been saying this for over 20 years, and everyone just ignores me. They refuse to see how career politicians game the system for their own gains. They refuse to see how career governmental employees rigged the system so that they are the only ones who can make any sense of it so they have to be the ones to hold the position. The whole thing has been rigged so these vultures can show they have to be kept in office. Our ability to represent ourselves should not be a convoluted mess of contradictory laws and confusing rules. They did this as job security. No one should hold more than one term of anything. The whole point of 'government by, of, and for the people' is that all the people should have a hand in how things go. We do not have that now, despite what some high ranking official might tell you.
 
2014-04-28 01:12:08 PM  

PreMortem: Strangulation= aggravated assault= 3-6 years. But it's a cop we're talking about, so I'm actually surprised he got fired.


My theory is that you have good departments and you have bad departments.  Good departments correct and/or get rid of potentially bad cops before they reach the news*, so events are extremely rare.  Bad departments shelter and encourage bad cops even after they kill people.

That's why you can have two departments of approximately equal size and serving about the same demographic where one will have no wrongful death suits and the other will be settling a dozen a year.

Consider Sheriff Joe Arpaio, lots of lawsuits regarding his behavior, it'll take time when he's replaced for the department to recover.

FullMetalPanda: Umm, so they expect this to keep happening and they just want to document it instead of prevent it?


Strangely enough incidents of abuse tend to drop like a rock when the cameras are present - Officers are forced to always be on their best behavior, and when the people who they interact with know about the camera, they tend to be better behaved as well.

It also helps if 'my camera broke' earns a reprimand for not taking care of your camera.

*And it's surprising that this made more than regional news.
 
2014-04-28 01:13:56 PM  
I think something is wrong with how we are training our police officers these days.

Police Academies seem to teach a "us against the world" philosophy.   Every interaction with the public is a potential life or death situation for the officer.

The safety of the officer is of paramount priority.   Forcing people to do everything the officer says, in the manner and timeline of the officer is a required skilling.   Pain compliance is the new buzzword.   Once upon a time, we called that torture.

I don't know what the right answer is, because Officer safety is important, but I refuse to agree that training officers that every interaction with the public has the same risk of death is the correct way to do it.

It makes our officers Paranoid, their suspicion and paranoia affects the behaviour of the person they are dealing with.   It tends to make the person nervous and jumpy.   That nervousness makes the Officer even more paranoid and suspicious.    "Why are you acting so nervous, that is suspicious, what are you trying to hide.  Kneel down on the ground with your hands behind your head so I feel safe now".
 
2014-04-28 01:18:43 PM  

ransack.: SpectroBoy: lymond01: Why audio is important. This could have been the scenario:

"You muthafarkin' pigs. You're worthless sacks of lard!"
"Yes yes. So we've heard."
"I'm gonna come back and cap all you pigs. Soon as my dad gets me out..."
"Kid, you need to be quiet."
"I'm gonna grab my dad's shotty and hunt you down, your family..."
"Oh fer Christ's sake will someone shut this drunk kid up before he goes from a night in lockup to 20 years..."
"Yah. I bet you have kids too. I'll shoot their little heads right....gack! Gurgle!"


Even if this is EXACTLY what the drunk said cops ARE NOT allowed to beat you up or choke you out because you hurt their widdle feewings.

If you said that to a cop in front of me and he suddenly choked you into unconsciousness, I would laugh and high-five the Officer, but just a hospital-type zero-contact air-five and not actually touch his glove because that would be assault on an Officer and I ain't tryin to be provokin' a chokin'.


There are always some unfortunate facts in any case, and video doesn't necessarily convey all of it.  Still, I'd tend to fall on the side of "don't choke/shoot/taze me, bro", but with an ear to other circumstances.  If Officer No-Neck is pretty much exemplary saving this one incident, then there's a circumstance.  If party-teen was getting spitty and/or bitey, well, there's another circumstance.  Passing judgement on either without having more back story than a blurry video, well, there's a circumstance too I guess.  Even as a bar bouncer, actually latching any sort of submission hold onto an unruly drunk is always a bad idea - but sometimes circumstances dictate.

/though the fact they shiat-canned Officer No-Neck so fast is probably a good indicator of a not-so-exemplary record.
 
2014-04-28 01:21:19 PM  

payattention: grinding_journalist - Definitely- I feel like any elected official shouldn't be allowed to serve more than one term in any office, at any level of government.

Exactly! I have been saying this for over 20 years, and everyone just ignores me. They refuse to see how career politicians game the system for their own gains. They refuse to see how career governmental employees rigged the system so that they are the only ones who can make any sense of it so they have to be the ones to hold the position. The whole thing has been rigged so these vultures can show they have to be kept in office. Our ability to represent ourselves should not be a convoluted mess of contradictory laws and confusing rules. They did this as job security. No one should hold more than one term of anything. The whole point of 'government by, of, and for the people' is that all the people should have a hand in how things go. We do not have that now, despite what some high ranking official might tell you.


Nobody would ever run for public office in that case. Public officials have to be very careful about their private relationships, who they're seen with in public, they can't own certain stocks or invest in certain fields, and the pay isn't that great, relatively. Nobody competent would ever run for the office of Sheriff if it wasn't a career itself. It pays like $120k/yr and you have to watch what you do 24/7 and there is so much responsibility, not to mention that you have to fund a campaign and quit your current job just to even maybe get it. Nobody who would actually be good for the community would ever run for Sheriff.
If the elections are truly fair and free, there shouldn't ever be a need for term limits anywhere. I do think that the infinite terms of the Supreme Court Justices works though for some idiosyncratic reason. It's somehow always good for a company to have at least one old cranky coot around who for some reason can't be fired and remembers what it was like when your parents were kids and you have to just stand there and listen when he talks and there's no arguing because he's so old. I'm on drugs.
 
Displayed 50 of 249 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report