Cops allow woman to be nearly killed - read this article.

The BBQ Pit
21

Can you give us some evidence that they were “tailing this guy for over a year”?.

Hell, can you give us any evidence that they even suspected this guy for over a year?

Obviously we will only know that when this comes to trial. Police can not release this evidence prior to trial without jeopardising the case.

There is no “generally”. Every case is unique.

To give you some idea how these things work, here is a current story of a man arrested for murder 8 years after the event, and who was followed by police off an on for over 2 years.

I would still like to see some evidence that police had been “tailing this guy for over a year”.

While there may be some cases where police kept someone under constant surveillance for a year or more, it would be very much the exception rather than the rule. What is far more likely is that fresh evidence came to light, and surveillance had been initiated much more recently. What usually happens is that somebody talks or some other fresh evidence turns up, and the investigation is re-activated after a long break.

22

My apologies- it was my own personal perception of the phrasing in the article. It was a fairly vague reveal of facts and a tenuous connection on my part, I admit. Woman is murdered in Guelph in 1998, he’s got a history of convictions and violence towards women, police have him under surveillance in Barrie. I connected dots that perhaps weren’t there.

Can you give us some evidence that this is the case?

23

I would guess so.

In the story I linked to, a child is murdered in one state in 2003, police have him under surveillance in another state in 2011, and he is subsequently arrested. But the police acknowledge that he wasn’t under surveillance for 8 years, only for a few months, off and on, over the past 2 years. He was interviewed immediately after the murder, so he was presumably a suspect for all that time, but nobody actually followed him until fresh evidence came to light.

That’s a pretty normal situation, insofar as anything is normal. You certainly can’t assume that “Suspect is under surveillance x months after crime was committed” is the same as “Suspect has been under surveillance for x months”.

Of course not. If I had evidence I wouldn’t have said it was “more likely”. I would have said it was the case, based on the evidence to hand.

24

The conditioned American response to raising the possibility that cops may not be superheroes is quite an interesting phenomenon…

25

…the conditioned response from some people at the mere mention on the police is quite an interesting phenomenon.

You have no rational basis for supposing that the police were involved. None.
It is a bizarre assumption to make.

26

Really? If anything the conditioned response to any mention of the police around here is a knee-jerk assumption of either extreme malice or utter incompetence.

People in the police force are like members of any other profession - most are good, some are great, and a few are terrible. People who want to believe that they’re all morons are just as misguided as people who want to believe that they’re all heroes. As others have said, there doesn’t seem to be enough information in this story to know whether the police have done anything at all negligent in this case.

27

What a stupid fucking statement. Most people realize that there are bad cops and good cops. I’d say about 95% of the few I’ve dealt with have been good cops, even when giving me tickets for traffic violations. Some have even been very good.

This doesn’t mean there are no bad cops, or that I won’t be on the lookout for the potential bad cop in future dealings. But I expect the majority to do their jobs to the best of their ability.

You may consider yourself “Condescending”, but your just another brainless idiot posting drivel on the internet, attributing a hive mind to any population which doesn’t believe your idiocy.

28

But in this case we’re talking specifically about cops who sat around munching donuts while a woman was raped and beaten nearly to death, not about cops in general?

29

I’m pretty sure this happens at least once a week given the rates at which cops eat donuts and the relative worldwide crime rates.
Oh you meant they knew she was being raped and beaten…

30

Bingo.

It’s as if undercover cops were following a suspected killer and he stopped by a known weed-dealer’s house, presumably to buy weed. For whatever reason he winds up killing them and now people are shouting that the cops “allowed” him to murder the inhabitants. I haven’t received any police training, but I’m assuming that when you’re undercover and tailing someone you don’t try to stay five feet behind them at all times.

31

Putting a fucking question mark after a direct allegation like this. So you can try to claim that You’re Just Asking Questions.

What a slimy, weasely piece of shit you are. If you want to make slurs against people, at least have the balls to own it.

Cowardly maggot!

We have a trifecta folks.

In addition to being batshit crazy and a coward, he is also an ignoramus.

If you bothered to do a cursory search of my posting history on these boards WRT to the police, you would have discovered that I am on the record as stating that a large majority of all police in all police forces are corrupt.

You really could not have picked a worse target to try to slur with this bullshit. But being batshit crazy, you don’t actually check whether the facts match with your paranoid delusions, do you?

Those of us who don’t hear the voices are all sheeple, right? :rolleyes:

Now would you care to explain your how this Batshit Crazy Conspiracy Theory of yours works? Do you really think that your belief that a cop arranged the murder of two women in revenge for being denied a blowjob by a hooker is normal?

Believing that sort of shit is clinical, textbook, Grade-A crazy.

32

I must have missed the part of the article where they explained that the police were munching donuts while callously ignoring the anguished cries for help from the poor crack whore.

Look, this guy is clearly a rather unsavoury character. Like most unsavoury characters, he likely associates with a whole range of unpleasant people. The fact that they saw him go off with a known prostitute hardly seems especially surprising - and any reasonable person would assume that he was going somewhere to have sex with her. What if they had seen him go somewhere with a known drug dealer, presumably in order to score some pot? What if they had seen him go into a house with his known girlfriend, presumably in order to have sex with her? Were the police supposed to intervene any time they saw him talking to or going somewhere with someone else? It would be pretty hard to be at all stealthy in surveillance if you had to pounce into action any time you saw your suspect doing something slightly untoward.

33

I think this article upset me so much because at the time I lived literally one block away from where it happened. I also lived alone and walked around downtown alone all the time. Just knowing that this dangerous offender was in my neighbourhood preying on women while the police “watched” terrifies me.

Shortly after this incident there was a community meeting at City Hall to address the problems facing downtown. Two women were there and they were asking the Chief of Police “Why didn’t you tell US that this dangerous guy was in our neighbourhood? Why didn’t you tell US?!” I looked at them (they looked familiar) and realized: “OMG, you know your neighbourhood has a problem when THE HOOKERS THEMSELVES are concerned about it.”

34

You don’t think there’s any room between not believing they are superheroes, and accusing them of conspiracy to commit murder based on no evidence at all?

Regards,
Shodan

35

But that isn’t what you posted. What you posted was:

What the hell were *you *thinking?

What do you think happens when a man goes off into the bushes with a hooker? Do you think they are going to have tea and crumpets? You do know that crack whores give blow-jobs to men in the bushes, right?

Why the fuck would the police think anything else?

Why?

What a load of batshit crazy bullshit. Seriously, you are deranged.

So you seriously think police should throw away x weeks worth of surveillance, just to stop a man from getting a blowjob from a hooker?

And what do you think would happen if they had let their presence be known? At best they could charge the suspect with prostitution, and literally 6 hours later he is free to walk away. He can then never be effectivly put under surveillance again. He is free to kill as many women as he wants with no police presence.

And then paranoid nutters like you would be bitching about how the cops blew the surveillance for a misdemeanor, thus allowing this sick bastard the opportunity to kill more women and how unbelievably disgusted with the police you are.

There is simply no way for the police to win against the crazy.

What the fuck do you want exactly? Can you form some sort of coherent position here?

Would have been less scared knowing that a dangerous offender was in your neighbourhood preying on women while the police weren’t watching?

Would you have been happier if the police prosecuted dangerous offenders without sufficient evidence, thus allowing them all to walk free due to double jeopardy?

Seriously, would that have made you happier?

Because I’m fucked if I can see what other alternatives there were. Perhaps you can tell us all what actions the police could have taken that would have stopped batshit crazy fuckers like yourself from bitching about they way they do their jobs.

So you want police to:

  1. Name and shame innocent citizens with no evidence?

  2. Commit libel/slander in doing so, and thus squander all the police departments’ resources in settling libel cases rather than, you know, persuing dangerous criminals?

  3. Make it pubic knowledge when they are tailing people by broadcasting their presence to literally everybody living and working in every neighbourhood that the person enters?

  4. Broadcast the movements of innocent citizens to the general population?

  5. Squander vast amounts of resources notifiying every resident of every neighbourhood that a suspect enters. So in addition to two plain clothes officers doing actual surveillance, they would need at least 50 other officers to doorknock every neighbourhood the suspect as much as passes through?

  6. All of the above?

You do realise that all of this is batshit insane, right? I man seriously. You do see how fucking crazy these suggestions of yours are. Never mind the fact that they are illegal. Never mind the fact that such actions are morally reprehensible and a massive blow to civil liberties and human dignity. You do realise that they are completely fucking impossible to achieve.

Right?

Yes, because hookers behave in a way that makes them feel safe and secure. That is why I always judge the safety of my area by the concerns of a group of drug addled women who have sex with strange men in the bushes for cash.

Hookers are clearly the standard by which to judge public safety.

:rolleyes:

36

Blake seems to have a lot of anger at “crack whores” and people who suggest they don’t deserve to be raped and murdered. Maybe this isn’t about cops but about his own budding serial-killer tendencies.

37

Anybody else notice that notice that you Condescending Robot is still refusing to answer the rather simple questions put to him? I wonder why that might be?

And I’m sure we’ve all noticed that he is still making statements, then ending them with a question marks so he can pretend he is "just Asking Questions.

What a sad, cowardly little person he is. :rolleyes:

38

Congratulations, you’ve just found an even thinner argument than ‘you guys think all cops are superheros’. I wouldn’t have thought that was possible.

Are you going to answer any of Blake’s actual questions? How the fuck do you think the police were supposed to know that this guy was beating and raping a prostitute rather than just fucking her? Because the later was about a billion times more likely to be occurring than the former.

39

Not that I think Czarcasm is making sense, but this is where a lot of anti-conspiracy theorists fall over..

The process could have been something like..

  1. Cop already on detail asks Carol for a freebie
  2. Cop gets denied
  3. Cop sees MacDonald take Carol behind a house
  4. Cop thinks to himself “Carol deserves a smackdown or to be cheated”
  5. Cop takes his time to do anything
  6. Oh Shit! He murdered her! I didn’t expect that.

It’s the same for the 9-11 conspiracy.

Did the gubermint or some secret cartel arrange explosives inside the towers blah blah - totally not.

Is it beyond the realm of comprehensibility that some person in one of the agencies knew that there were some fundmentalists planning a hijacking, and “closed one eye” to arresting them early in the expectation that they would fail. But in failing at the gate, or once on the plane, it would make for better headlines? While I don’t think that is the case, it also wouldn’t particularly surprise me if it had happended - it at least falls within the realm of a reasonable possibility.

40

I mean, defending cops is one thing, but it’s really telling that Blake had to depart from the standard rhetoric there and go into a long-winded, violent rant about how she’s just a crack whore who sells herself for money and how dare you get upset about her being raped and nearly murdered. That’s truly special and transcends any issues about police behavior here entirely. Really sick stuff.