Why do I hear Michael Weston voicing this?
But yes, yes, I agree.
In regards to retaining them on the forcfe, won’t the fact that they’ve been shown to have falsified police reports work heavily against them the next time they testify in court? How can retaining them in any way help the department?
Its a good thing that Child Molesters can’t protect each other. 
Evidence can be tainted but not necessarily inadmissible. Sometimes the taint can go to the weight with which the decider of fact should consider said evidence.
In fact, anybody who’s been convicted recently due to testimony of these cops should probably appeal their decisions. And they should probably be overturned.
Way to go, blue.
Someone’s gotta work pawnshop detail, or patrol the harbor on a boat…
Except in a certain organization headquartered somewhere in Italy…
I can’t figure out if the “cop defenders” here are really just ardent supporters of our boys in blue, or if they’re sadistic supporters of the use of tasers, no matter what. Of course, we all know the police would never abuse tasers . . .
What’s up with all the broad brushing here? So, there are bad cops. Doesn’t mean all cops are bad. What’s the alternative? No cops at all? Yay, anarchy? What group shall we demonize next?
Silliness.
Would you prefer abusive cops use their batons and pepper spray instead? The fact the bad cops will use one of their weapons improperly says much more about the cop than the weapon? There’s a well-known adage that applies: Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.
No, in the video she said something about “a cat jumped out the window and I slammed the brakes,” or else I’m hearing it wrong.
You know, rear-enders are not always the fault of the follower. If she started up after waiting for a light, then slammed on her brakes, even a non-cop driver might not get a ticket. Usually, in the case of any accident at all, both drivers are somewhat responsible. It sounds like the 23-year-old lush was at least partly at fault.
(I can’t believe I’m taking the cops’ side even this far.)
BUT, they totally blew it by inventing stuff.
I would like to note that about 1973 I was rear-ended by a cop, and they managed not to arrest me and to send me a check for the repairs. (The check was probably for more than the car was worth.) I’m fairly sure the driver did not get a ticket, though.
Still waiting for that list of forum members who defend cops no matter what. Got that list yet?
OK, i heard that now. So the cops didn’t actually fabricate the existence of the cat; they merely fabricated what the woman did with her car, saying that she swerved into an adjacent lane rather than simply braking in the lane she was in.
If you think the issue here is whether rear-enders are always the follower’s fault, then i submit that you are completely missing the point of the argument. The question is not who was at fault, but that the police can clearly be heard conspiring to alter the story so as to make the woman appear more culpable than she actually was, and to completely remove any blame for the accident from the officer who rear-ended her.
Me neither.
“Blew it” is not exactly the words i would use, but hey, it’s nice of you to at least admit they might have done the wrong thing.
Actually my point was that the cops didn’t even HAVE TO fabricate anything. That they did makes them not just look bad, but stupid-bad. The driver admitted she’d been drinking and she admitted she started up then slammed on her brakes.
Sounds good to me.
The OP is patently asinine so I’ll waste few words on it.
The group it addresses is illusory. By ‘cop defenders’ you can only mean people that will defend policemen no matter what they do. I have never seen anyone take such a position on this board.
I can only imagine your scorn were the converse to be posted. “Hey, cop haters, what about this cop who rescued a kid from a blazing inferno?” And your scorn would be justified. Such a post would be idiotic.
As is yours.
Well, there was a guy who turned out to be a Houston cop, who was kind of annoying in his response to every question of police malfeasance: essentially, “You ingrates don’t understand, it’s us against them!”
I know…it was like they were playing a game of MadLibs or something!
Couldn’t they have come up with something more plausible than that?
Edit: OK, you have to watch the video. I was going on the article which makes it sound like the cops are inventing the cat thing.
If you rear end someone who stops, it is your fault. You are supposed to be far enough back to prevent such a thing happening. You have no excuse for rear ending someone, unless they are driving in reverse, then maybe.
I would hope they are fired, for from now on, now matter what case they may testify at in the future, the cross-examination of each of them will start with “Have you ever deliberately falsified or conspired to falisfy . . . ,” following which there would be a good chance that their testimony would be tossed.