C'mon Frank. You should've been able to find one because there are scores of examples out there. They're everywhere!!I've never been put in the position to have to arrest a cop.
C'mon Frank. You should've been able to find one because there are scores of examples out there. They're everywhere!!I've never been put in the position to have to arrest a cop.
I've never been put in the position to have to arrest a cop.
Oh, I've reviewed my fair share. That used to be part of my job before I was promoted. I've fallen into that trap of watching a video and reacting based on my emotional response, "that looked terrible." Only to have access to the details NOT shown in the video, what did the officers know, see, understand, what did the suspect do, have, etc, none-of-which are captured on the video. Having access to ALL the information allows me to make an informed determination if the force used violated Graham v. Connor's objectively reasonableness test. Most internet videos ARE ambiguous. We take it as "lead information only" pending supporting details.As you say, I could give scores of links to videos but I feel strongly that they would be dismissed "ambiguous" or "rare" so I'll not waste my time. They are there, in their abundance for any that wish to see.
In my 25yrs as an LEO (21 on the street and 4 at our training academy), I've arrested 0 police officers. I've never come across a situation where I had to. I've NEVER seen conduct that warranted it. I have assisted the arrest of a couple of police recruits in training, 1 for showing up drunk, and one for an armed robbery they committed on a day off......How many LEOs have you arrested?
I'm sure there might be. But I've never been put in that position.C'mon Frank. You should've been able to find one because there are scores of examples out there. They're everywhere!!
Yeah, now that you mention it.That Epicenity chick reminds me of a former member.
If hurting feelings was a crime, I should be many years into a life sentence.You hurt my feelings once, though.
Not sure about that, but with 63 posts, mostly in the "pride month" thread and this one, I'm sensing that "she" is not here to talk about guns.That Epicenity chick reminds me of a former member.
I joined this forum because I am from Indiana and I use guns as necessary. I am not an enthusiast. I don't engage very much because of the extreme amount and expansiveness of the bigotry and misogyny here. Your post is loaded with both. I do not feel welcome at all here because of a lot (not all) of you are extremist debate-bros who seem to be foaming at the mouth to make sure you hate all the right people and everyone knows about it.Not sure about that, but with 63 posts, mostly in the "pride month" thread and this one, I'm sensing that "she" is not here to talk about guns.
Wow. How the flip do you get bigotry, hatred, and misogyny all out of a simple post suggesting that you're not on this forum to talk about guns, especially when you pretty much say yourself that that's true?I joined this forum because I am from Indiana and I use guns as necessary. I am not an enthusiast. I don't engage very much because of the extreme amount and expansiveness of the bigotry and misogyny here. Your post is loaded with both. I do not feel welcome at all here because of a lot (not all) of you are extremist debate-bros who seem to be foaming at the mouth to make sure you hate all the right people and everyone knows about it.
I usually chime-in when someone says something extremely ignorant or inflammatory to help refine my "arguments" when I encounter regressive bigots in person.
Also, use mostly air rifles which aren't really firearms. I have a sanctuary for native, cavity-nesting birds so high-end air rifles allow me to dispatch invasive bird species without stressing the native birds or making sloppy shots the injure rather than kill.
Here's where I feel like most of the "evil" occurs. If there isn't a crystal-clear video with clean audio that starts before all of the parties involved got out of bed that morning (yes I'm being facetious here) then we rely, it seems, solely on the testimony of the officers involved which is often tailored or falsified as necessary to exculpate the offending LEO. IMHO the police the cover for one another, the DAs and prosecutors don't look too hard into it goes away. Video evidence is helping with this.Oh, I've reviewed my fair share. That used to be part of my job before I was promoted. I've fallen into that trap of watching a video and reacting based on my emotional response, "that looked terrible." Only to have access to the details NOT shown in the video, what did the officers know, see, understand, what did the suspect do, have, etc, none-of-which are captured on the video. Having access to ALL the information allows me to make an informed determination if the force used violated Graham v. Connor's objectively reasonableness test. Most internet videos ARE ambiguous. We take it as "lead information only" pending supporting details.
Because my IQ is higher than room temperature.Wow. How the flip do you get bigotry, hatred, and misogyny all out of a simple post suggesting that you're not on this forum to talk about guns, especially when you pretty much say yourself that that's true?
Well, for us simple morons who don't know how to comb through every word and insinuation and pick out 10 different flavors of insults in every single sentence addressed our way that doesn't 100% confirm every single idea we hold, would you be so kind as to elaborate and explain where the hatred and bigotry is in that statement?Because my IQ is higher than room temperature.
"mostly in the "pride month" thread and this one, I'm sensing that "she" is"
1. I appreciate your candor.I think it might be helpful to delineate two ideas.
Every dang department isn't Rampart or Training Day
Yep. Getting a little spicy in here. Too much hot sauce.This is about to get interesting. I’ll be back at like lunch.