ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
:quirky
eye95 wrote:
I witnessed it. Oops, only your personal experiences count, I forgot...
:quirky
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
California fatal BART shooting officer looses job
- Thread starter since9
- Start date
kwikrnu
Banned
imported post
eye95 wrote:
Those level headed cops can make up an excuse to hold someone for a couple of hours with absolutely no proof of a crime.
It's not often that I hear of the crazy regular folks doing that.
eye95 wrote:
Those level headed cops can make up an excuse to hold someone for a couple of hours with absolutely no proof of a crime.
It's not often that I hear of the crazy regular folks doing that.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
kwikrnu wrote:
Neither does this posters reply support the ridiculous assertion that the police are deliberately recruiting bad people.
The thing I like about the OC community, as opposed to the antis, is that usually they post rationally, not emotionally. We should leave the emotionally-charged, rash, and unsupported claims to the anti community.
Does anyone else have support for (or against) the statement?
kwikrnu wrote:
Neither does this posters reply support the ridiculous assertion that the police are deliberately recruiting bad people.
The thing I like about the OC community, as opposed to the antis, is that usually they post rationally, not emotionally. We should leave the emotionally-charged, rash, and unsupported claims to the anti community.
Does anyone else have support for (or against) the statement?
kwikrnu
Banned
imported post
eye95 wrote:
The current Chief of the Nashville Police Department has tried to hire felons into the department.
Taken from, "A Nashville's Cop fall from power to prison" Nqashville Scene May 28, 2009 by CalebHannan here
"The glad-handing earned him enemies within his own union. But it also got him a spot on the POST commission, a powerful governor-appointed board that provides waivers to cops who don't meet all the requirements to wear the badge.
In 2005, Hullett became chairman of POST. The first order of business: Five waiver requests from Nashville's new chief, Ronal Serpas. The cops all had criminal records. In some cases even felonies. Hullett drew a line in the sand.
Saying "this isn't New Orleans"–a reference to Serpas' notoriously corrupt hometown–Hullett denied the requests, effectively outranking his boss. The results were swift.
After news broke that Nashville's head cop was vouching for former criminals, Serpas sought revenge, knocking Hullett down from his Lieutenant's post at Central Precinct and exiling him to the impound lot."
eye95 wrote:
The current Chief of the Nashville Police Department has tried to hire felons into the department.
Taken from, "A Nashville's Cop fall from power to prison" Nqashville Scene May 28, 2009 by CalebHannan here
"The glad-handing earned him enemies within his own union. But it also got him a spot on the POST commission, a powerful governor-appointed board that provides waivers to cops who don't meet all the requirements to wear the badge.
In 2005, Hullett became chairman of POST. The first order of business: Five waiver requests from Nashville's new chief, Ronal Serpas. The cops all had criminal records. In some cases even felonies. Hullett drew a line in the sand.
Saying "this isn't New Orleans"–a reference to Serpas' notoriously corrupt hometown–Hullett denied the requests, effectively outranking his boss. The results were swift.
After news broke that Nashville's head cop was vouching for former criminals, Serpas sought revenge, knocking Hullett down from his Lieutenant's post at Central Precinct and exiling him to the impound lot."
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
kwikrnu wrote:
The assertion from someone who did not make it through training is attempting to smear LEOs in general.
Does anyone have any support for this general assertion that police are deliberately recruiting bad folks?
(BTW, this case demonstrates failure to hire bad people.)
kwikrnu wrote:
Citing anecdotal evidence does not support a generalized claim. If it did then cops are murderers and cops are saints.
The assertion from someone who did not make it through training is attempting to smear LEOs in general.
Does anyone have any support for this general assertion that police are deliberately recruiting bad folks?
(BTW, this case demonstrates failure to hire bad people.)
kwikrnu
Banned
imported post
eye95 wrote:
The Nashville Chief of Police tried to get waivers for at least five cops with criminal records and some of them had felonies. He submitted the paperwork to POST. Post did not accept the waivers and the cop who was part of the refusal was given a crap assignment.
If the chief of police was seeking waivers for criminals and felons to become cops that means they were recruiting criminals and felons. POST stopped the chief.
eye95 wrote:
The Nashville Chief of Police tried to get waivers for at least five cops with criminal records and some of them had felonies. He submitted the paperwork to POST. Post did not accept the waivers and the cop who was part of the refusal was given a crap assignment.
If the chief of police was seeking waivers for criminals and felons to become cops that means they were recruiting criminals and felons. POST stopped the chief.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
kwikrnu wrote:
OK, so that's two I am moving on from until support for the generalization is produced.
kwikrnu wrote:
Again, anecdotes do not prove generalizations.
OK, so that's two I am moving on from until support for the generalization is produced.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
There is no such thing as evidence that you will accept. Pretending to take the high road will not help you now...
There is no such thing as evidence that you will accept. Pretending to take the high road will not help you now...
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
ixtow wrote:
eye95 is the kind of guy who would, living in Germany during Nazi rule, deny the holocaust was occurring, because nobody could provide him with a statistic of the number of Jews murdered.
Forget the fact that everybody can see their neighbors being taken away with their own eyes. Forget the fact that such a statistic is, for what should be obvious reasons, virtually impossible to create from within the regime, until long after the fact.
ixtow wrote:
The evidence doesn't exist because there nobody has designed statistics to support the conclusion. Which says nothing about the validity (or lack thereof) of the argument, as would the existence of any amount of inevitably-maniuplated statistics (whatever their conclusion).
eye95 is the kind of guy who would, living in Germany during Nazi rule, deny the holocaust was occurring, because nobody could provide him with a statistic of the number of Jews murdered.
Forget the fact that everybody can see their neighbors being taken away with their own eyes. Forget the fact that such a statistic is, for what should be obvious reasons, virtually impossible to create from within the regime, until long after the fact.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
marshaul, that is a personal attack and is beneath the dignity of this venue.
Personal attacks are usually a sign that one does not have the rhetorical wherewithal to conduct an honest debate.
Mike and/or John, feel free to do with this post and the previous one what you will.
marshaul, that is a personal attack and is beneath the dignity of this venue.
Personal attacks are usually a sign that one does not have the rhetorical wherewithal to conduct an honest debate.
Mike and/or John, feel free to do with this post and the previous one what you will.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
Nor does observing a pattern in your behavior qualify as a personal attack...
It is very much evident that you would deny anything you disagree with until your dying breath. Data that is deliberately obfuscated is quite difficult to create a study from.
And entire Nation of people who don't trust their so-called benevolent protectors because every one of them can cite a personal experience of dealing with a dirty cop, is plenty of evidence for me. I don't need to get shot in the head and fall into a pit of bodies before I'll believe it. Perhaps you do, but that's your choice.
And as a further affirmation of my position as NOT a Cop basher, I'll repeat myself. The politicians who hand-pick the lowest of the low in the recruitment process are what is really dirty. There is scum in every society. Being a Cop doesn't cause it. Scum is just the preferred type selected by the wo/men behind the curtain; our so-called representative elected officials.
eye95 wrote:
Talking high and mighty doesn't negate anything. Tyranny with manners, stupid with manners.... Being a student of Emily Post doesn't make you right.
Nor does observing a pattern in your behavior qualify as a personal attack...
It is very much evident that you would deny anything you disagree with until your dying breath. Data that is deliberately obfuscated is quite difficult to create a study from.
And entire Nation of people who don't trust their so-called benevolent protectors because every one of them can cite a personal experience of dealing with a dirty cop, is plenty of evidence for me. I don't need to get shot in the head and fall into a pit of bodies before I'll believe it. Perhaps you do, but that's your choice.
And as a further affirmation of my position as NOT a Cop basher, I'll repeat myself. The politicians who hand-pick the lowest of the low in the recruitment process are what is really dirty. There is scum in every society. Being a Cop doesn't cause it. Scum is just the preferred type selected by the wo/men behind the curtain; our so-called representative elected officials.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Well said. I agree with every word.
Well said. I agree with every word.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
They deleted my "How do you take a leak without dropping several pounds of 1911 on the men's room floor becasue your other equipment simply won't fit out your fly unless you unbuckle and unbutton too." It is very clearly relevant and on topic, but it wasn't classy enough.... I don't want my shiny Taurus on the men's room floor! We all know what goes on in there.
But I digress.... If they want to change all my posts to say that I'm the Tooth Fairy's Gay Room Mate, I guess they can. Inviting them to do it is like telling water that you give it permission to be wet.
No matter how high your nose gets, it can still smell what comes out of your mouth. I'm certain Emily Post would not approve. I also don't care.
eye95 wrote:
Mike and John already feel free to do what they will with their own forum, trying to look cool by inviting them to do what they already have 100% authority to do is kinda silly.
They deleted my "How do you take a leak without dropping several pounds of 1911 on the men's room floor becasue your other equipment simply won't fit out your fly unless you unbuckle and unbutton too." It is very clearly relevant and on topic, but it wasn't classy enough.... I don't want my shiny Taurus on the men's room floor! We all know what goes on in there.
But I digress.... If they want to change all my posts to say that I'm the Tooth Fairy's Gay Room Mate, I guess they can. Inviting them to do it is like telling water that you give it permission to be wet.
No matter how high your nose gets, it can still smell what comes out of your mouth. I'm certain Emily Post would not approve. I also don't care.
Ruger
Regular Member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
eye95 wrote:
Based on ixtow's academy story, I think one could reasonably say that the instructors at that particular academy are deliberately training people to be BAD officers.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
Ruger wrote:
If one wants to make the claim that police are deliberately recruiting bad people, he has a burden to prove that malicious statement. Prove. Personal anecdotes don't prove anything. At best, they give insight into what's in the head of the person relating the anecdote.
Personally, I find that statement to be so vile that it demands objective proof or to be denounced by any rational person.
That LEO bashing is being allowed on this site, despite rule number 5, is hard to fathom.
Ruger wrote:
Considering that we don't know the circumstances of his departure (and can never know), the story is just that. A story.
If one wants to make the claim that police are deliberately recruiting bad people, he has a burden to prove that malicious statement. Prove. Personal anecdotes don't prove anything. At best, they give insight into what's in the head of the person relating the anecdote.
Personally, I find that statement to be so vile that it demands objective proof or to be denounced by any rational person.
That LEO bashing is being allowed on this site, despite rule number 5, is hard to fathom.
Ruger
Regular Member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
I don't understand what kind of "proof" it is that you are looking for.
I won't go so far as to say that all police departments suffer from rampant corruption, however, I think it is fairly obvious that there are indeed many that do, and recruiting/training practices of those departments do play a part in the problem.
Example: I remember back in the mid 90's when my family spent a couple years in New Orleans, an officer wrongfully shot & killed a couple of people (seemingly) at random. The ensuing investigation revealed that she failed the pre-employment psychological exam, but was hired because she fit into two minority groups (being a black female). Hiring her helped the department meet their minority quotas.
And no, I do not have a link to reference for the above story, as it happened in '95 or '96, and I don't particularly feel like scouring the internet for a 15 year old news story (that might not even be archived) about an officer whose name I don't recall. Take it or leave it.
eye95 wrote:
He already told us what the circumstances of his departure were - or are you looking for objective proof as to the truthfulness of that portion of his post as well? :lol:
I don't understand what kind of "proof" it is that you are looking for.
I won't go so far as to say that all police departments suffer from rampant corruption, however, I think it is fairly obvious that there are indeed many that do, and recruiting/training practices of those departments do play a part in the problem.
Example: I remember back in the mid 90's when my family spent a couple years in New Orleans, an officer wrongfully shot & killed a couple of people (seemingly) at random. The ensuing investigation revealed that she failed the pre-employment psychological exam, but was hired because she fit into two minority groups (being a black female). Hiring her helped the department meet their minority quotas.
And no, I do not have a link to reference for the above story, as it happened in '95 or '96, and I don't particularly feel like scouring the internet for a 15 year old news story (that might not even be archived) about an officer whose name I don't recall. Take it or leave it.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
Ruger wrote:
Ruger wrote:
Oh, I have no doubt that bad officers have been hired. It is even possible, although extremely unlikely, that some police departments are deliberately hiring bad officers. However, the generalization makes, by definition, the general statement that departments are deliberately hiring bad officers. That is a vile and unacceptable thing to say without proof. I frankly don't care if proving the generalization is impossible. Proving generalizations is horribly difficult. That is precisely why we should not generalize--especially in an insulting way.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
OMG it's vile and unacceptable!
Really, I'm only posting in this thread to show I read it and still don't care.
OMG it's vile and unacceptable!
Really, I'm only posting in this thread to show I read it and still don't care.