Not exactly like the rest of the topic, but who wants to start yet another topic about cops involved in killing somebody.
That was very interesting, and educational.
He pretty much reveals everything people suspect is wrong with cops and the institution of the police, is actually wrong. It probably won’t matter at all.
Such as? He talks about institutional racism about 18 minutes in, earlier talks about how as a white guy he doesn’t have to worry about carrying a dime bag, and even earlier talks about having to leave his patrol area and going in to the black neighborhood to get his arrest numbers up. So what myths did he dispel that we’re going to ignore?
BREAKING NEWS: Guy doesn’t like his old job, says his boss and coworkers sucked and didn’t know how to do their jobs as good as he did.
Film at 11.
Thanks for the useless input but FXMastermind said that the interview contradicted “what everyone suspects” is wrong with the police. So whether you believe him or not has jackshit to do with it.
Eta: he didn’t actually say he did it better. He admitted to being an adrenaline junky and not standing up when a cop did wrong. I suspect you didn’t even watch it.
I think FXM wrote a bit more poorly than he could have and I think some are reading it even worse. He’s saying that the ex-cop CONFIRMED that what people think is wrong with the police is, in fact, wrong. Not that people are wrong about what is wrong with the police. Commas can make a world of difference, IMO.
Well I haven’t memorized the politics of most dopers so maybe it was poor wording.
I went back, and yes, it is actually a horrible horrible statement.
I meant to write, he seems to be confirming that yes, cops are often guilty of most of the things the public suspects cops are guilty of.
Fuck, that isn’t much better.
Fuck it. Just watch the fucking video, don’t take my opinion of it.
Shouldn’t the breaking news be: Smapti refuses to find fault in police behavior?
That’s not anything new, though.
That because Smapti has Special Smapti Knowledge and Special Smapti Experience with that Special Smapti Flavour that a retired officer with one hell of a good C.V. does not have.
You forgot the Smapti Tinfoil Hat™, the Smapti Headphones™ that cancel all sound except la-la-la at volume 11 and the Smapti Blinkers™ he staples to his skull.
I’ve read his interviews. He comes off as a guy who doesn’t like his old job and wants to badmouth his coworkers about stuff he never complained about when he was actually in a position to do something about it.
He makes a valid point that cops shouldn’t be pointing guns at civilians if they’re not intending to open fire, but the rest of it is just a bunch of baseless accusations wound up in the same old buzzwords about “militarization” and such.
Police officer fired, facing aggravated assault charges when his official report is contradicted by his own body cam.
Another case that, but for video, would have resulted in a member of the brute squad getting away with unlawful force.
I hope that cop body-camera lens isn’t typical. It’s nearly useless. Lenses should have a wider view, the equivalent of a 28mm, or at the most a 35mm lens, on a 35mm camera. That lens could have been chosen as a way to hide reality.
Good. The system works.
The system would work better if a special prosecutor was appointed for every questionable shooting by a cop.
Assuming your belief that county prosecutors are all sympathetic to the police and refuse to indict no matter what (which it isn’t), what would stop this “special prosecutor” from becoming similarly jaded and pro-police?
Because they don’t deal with the police on a daily basis, and don’t depend on the cooperation of the police department to get convictions. You do know that special prosecutors are appointed from outside the jurisdiction of local law enforcement, right?
By definition, a special prosecutor responsible for investigating every police shooting would be dealing with the police on a daily basis and dependent on the cooperation of the police department to get convictions.
In any event, you’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Prosecutors are happy to indict when there’s hard evidence that the officer was in the wrong, as demonstrated several posts ago. What you want is indictments for cops regardless of whether there’s evidence.