[QUOTE=Lankist;35829483]
Ashkenazi is the jewish racial demographic.[/QUOTE]
Regardless of the fact that that "race" only comprises a fraction of jews, the point still stands for other religions/lifestyles/hobbies/what have you.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;35829471]the definition of stereotype in no way proves that cops are good. if anything i can use your own argument, you're stereotyping cops as mostly good therefore you're wrong because you're using stereotypes!!! JUST THE FACTS[/QUOTE]
What are you trying to say? Are you serious LOL
Yes, but considering the [i]fact[/i] that most cops are [u]not[/u] corrupt then it wouldn't be considered a stereotype because it's [i]fact[/i]!!! JUST THE FACTS
[QUOTE=Lankist;35829483]Accountability.
It's the "who watches the watchmen" paradox. Cops look after their own before they look after others, and they have a nasty tendency to use "hunches" more than evidence. All too often those hunches stem from skin color.
Right now there's no reliable way of punishing misconduct within the uniform, as the only people who are capable of investigating and proving it are fiercely loyal to other cops.[/QUOTE]
Please elaborate.
[QUOTE=Pantz76;35829499]Regardless of the fact that that "race" only comprises a fraction of jews, the point still stands for other religions/lifestyles/hobbies/what have you.[/QUOTE]
why are you saying religions lifestyles and hobbies when you and king tiger were using RACE as your analogy before?
[QUOTE=Pantz76;35829499]Regardless of the fact that that "race" only comprises a fraction of jews, the point still stands for other religions/lifestyles/hobbies/what have you.[/QUOTE]
uhm, no, ashkenazi is the primary jewish demographic, comprising ~80% of all practitioners of Judaism
[QUOTE=zacht_180;35829503]What are you trying to say? Are you serious LOL
Yes, but considering the [i]fact[/i] that most cops are [u]not[/u] corrupt then it wouldn't be considered a stereotype because it's [i]fact[/i]!!! JUST THE FACTS[/QUOTE]
except thats not a fact
[QUOTE=Pantz76;35829507]Please elaborate.[/QUOTE]
It ties into prosecutorial misconduct.
Prosecutors, for instance, want to keep a nice win-record, and are more concerned with winning a case rather than actually putting a real criminal behind bars. This is why it's so frighteningly common for prosecutors to ignore exonerating evidence, because that would count as a loss on their resume.
Police, similarly, have a tendency to want to put [I]anyone[/I] behind bars just to close a case, regardless of guilt or evidence.
Police are also extremely jumpy. You can say it's justified, but THEY are the ones who volunteered for a job in which their life is being put on the line. Defense of police is secondary to protection of civilians in an ideal system. Unfortunately, police are so over-protective of themselves (and downright paranoid) that they tend to shoot first and ask questions later. This is counter-intuitive to their expressed purpose: to PROTECT and SERVE [the people].
As it is, most police, crooked or straight, view their service as a career path and not as a duty. This leads to some pretty terrible things done in the name of self-preservation and prosperity on the part of the officer.
[editline]4th May 2012[/editline]
Basically, police view the public as a potential threat rather than that which they are sworn to protect. This is a problem. They're the ones who have agreed to put their own lives on the line. They cannot turn around after swearing their oaths and worry about their own safety first and foremost. That is not the duty of police.
[quote="Lachz0r"]except thats not a fact[/quote]
Oh but it is. In the Dayton police department, we have roughly three hundred officers (which is a good amount for this size of a city). As of 2000, four of those 300 were accused/charged of doing something that questions their position. Let's take that to a larger scale of multiple cities with the same size department. You have about 1 in 75 officers being "corrupt." Gotcha.
[QUOTE=zacht_180;35829583]Oh but it is. In the Dayton police department, we have roughly three hundred officers (which is a good amount for this size of a city). As of 2000, four of those 300 were accused/charged of doing something that questions their position. Let's take that to a larger scale of multiple cities with the same size department. You have about 1 in 75 officers being "corrupt." Gotcha.[/QUOTE]
What were the crimes, verdicts and punishments?
The issue isn't how many police are corrupt. The issue is how corrupt police are handled (i.e. not at all.) I would be far less concerned about corrupt police if they didn't so frequently get away with things like beating minorities, pepper-spraying praying women and shooting compulsive gamblers in their own homes.
[QUOTE=zacht_180;35829583]Oh but it is. In the Dayton police department, we have roughly three hundred officers (which is a good amount for this size of a city). As of 2000, four of those 300 were accused/charged of doing something that questions their position. Let's take that to a larger scale of multiple cities with the same size department. You have about 1 in 75 officers being "corrupt." Gotcha.[/QUOTE]
as lankist has pointed out, cops watch out for other cops. how am i supposed to trust your numbers when police have proven again and again they will look out for each other before they look out for the public? now i'm not saying all cops are bad people themselves, i feel that it's the system that's inherently bad i just also don't like cops because of personal experiences but i won't let that cloud my judgment ok
[QUOTE=Lankist;35829595]What were the crimes, verdicts and punishments?
The issue isn't how many police are corrupt. The issue is how corrupt police are handled (i.e. not at all.)[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter, that's for a different conversation. It was the issue. I was responding to Lachz0r and our comments. Lachz0r said it wasn't a fact that mose officers weren't corrupt, I proved it as fact and that's what I did.
it's not a fact though. cops say cops aren't corrupt so it's a fact they aren't?
[QUOTE=zacht_180;35829620]Doesn't matter, that's for a different conversation. Lachz0r said it wasn't a fact that mose officers weren't corrupt, I proved it as fact and that's what I did.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but you can't sit here for an hour asking me dozens of asinine questions and then refuse to back up your goddamn position.
Charges levied against police officers are a matter of public record and there is absolutely no reason why you can't elaborate.
I've pulled fucking FoIA requests. Don't tell me it's irrelevant. You brought it up. You back it up.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35829631]I'm sorry, but you can't sit here for an hour asking me dozens of asinine questions and then refuse to back up your goddamn position.
Charges levied against police officers are a matter of public record and there is absolutely no reason why you can't elaborate.
I've pulled fucking FoIA requests. Don't tell me it's irrelevant. You brought it up. You back it up.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck have I asked of you?
"it's not a fact though. cops say cops aren't corrupt so it's a fact they aren't?"
No but my math is. Of course there are always exceptions to any situation. I'm not saying it's dead on, but it's approximately correct. Who knows, maybe it was seven officers who did something they shouldn't have, just three of them didn't get caught.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35829595]What were the crimes, verdicts and punishments?
[U]The issue isn't how many police are corrupt.[/U] The issue is how corrupt police are handled (i.e. not at all.) I would be far less concerned about corrupt police if they didn't so frequently get away with things like beating minorities, pepper-spraying praying women and shooting compulsive gamblers in their own homes.[/QUOTE]
Was this not the issue that has been argued for much of this thread now? (Paraphrased) "It's not worth trusting cops because many of them are corrupt."
[QUOTE=Cireric;35829650]Was this not the issue that has been argued for much of this thread now? (Paraphrased) "It's not worth trusting cops because many of them are corrupt."[/QUOTE]
No.
You didn't read the fucking thread.
Your side has been pretending that was the point of contention.
Go back and read my posts. I say, multiple times, that while the minority of police are corrupt, they are also incredibly empowered and unaccountable for what they do, which reflects upon the trustworthiness of the whole of the police.
[editline]4th May 2012[/editline]
Not everyone at a rave party is a rapist or an organ thief. that doesn't mean I'm going to drink anything anyone gives me while I'm there.
The fact is, if I DO encounter a corrupt officer, I have no recourse and no means of defending myself BECAUSE of the attitude of your particular side. I can't fight a cop. Even if he IS corrupt, and I PROVE it, I STILL go to prison because you can't disobey police regardless of their integrity.
If and when you encounter that "1-in-75", you are FUCKED. You can't do anything! You're powerless. If you end up dead, no justice will be served. At most a cop will get fired. End of story.
[QUOTE=zacht_180;35829641]What the fuck have I asked of you?
"it's not a fact though. cops say cops aren't corrupt so it's a fact they aren't?"
No but my math is. Of course there are always exceptions to any situation. I'm not saying it's dead on, but it's approximately correct. Who knows, maybe it was seven officers who did something they shouldn't have, just three of them didn't get caught.[/QUOTE]
i don't think you're understanding me at all. i'm saying that your numbers can't be construed as fact because your numbers are provided by the police and i don't trust the police so their numbers are meaningless
[editline]5th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cireric;35829650]Was this not the issue that has been argued for much of this thread now? (Paraphrased) "It's not worth trusting cops because many of them are corrupt."[/QUOTE]
i don't believe the majority of cops are corrupt i believe the system itself is corrupt
[QUOTE=zacht_180;35829641]What the fuck have I asked of you?
"it's not a fact though. cops say cops aren't corrupt so it's a fact they aren't?"
No but my math is. Of course there are always exceptions to any situation. I'm not saying it's dead on, but it's approximately correct. Who knows, maybe it was seven officers who did something they shouldn't have, just three of them didn't get caught.[/QUOTE]
If you don't want to provide details then you need to come up with something other than anecdotal evidence.
Independent evidence, preferably.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35829671]No.
You didn't read the fucking thread.
Your side has been pretending that was the point of contention.
Go back and read my posts. I say, multiple times, that while the minority of police are corrupt, they are also incredibly empowered and unaccountable for what they do, which reflects upon the trustworthiness of the whole of the police.[/QUOTE]
"You can call that the minority of police, but I'd rather distrust the majority than be caught dealing with that minority."
If you haven't noticed with my posts, this is what I've been arguing.
Read what I have been saying.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;35829090]Yes it is because it is an extreme generalization.[/QUOTE]
Do you know how defensive cops are of other cops? and when something bad happens, you'd be press to find a cop who doesn't want to rip the arms off of the guy who harmed their cop buddy.
[editline]5th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=zacht_180;35829113]Shit, this again? You're fucking kidding me...
Read what I said on page 6. "The police are stupid power-hungry assholes" is a stereotype and NOTHING but a stereotype. Sure, there's some officers who don't deserve to have their job but not all of them are like that. Let's consider the fact that 52.1% of violent crimes in America are committed by African Americans. Holy shit, every single black person must be a criminal! No... just no. It's the same fucking thing when people go around implying that every damn police department in the United States of America employs moronic police officers.[/QUOTE]
There is nothing in the genetic code that makes black people more violent. But there is a LOT in the culture, protection and badge police in the US are surrounded with.
Compared to the shit other people get for not even doing anything to hurt a person I say 14-25 years for attempted murder of a police officer is quite a short time
[QUOTE=Matrix374;35831523]Compared to the shit other people get for not even doing anything to hurt a person I say 14-25 years for attempted murder of a police officer is quite a short time[/QUOTE]
that's an argument against sentences for victimless crimes, not an argument for extended sentence for this one.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;35829425]Some darkies carry guns and kill white people too! We shouldn't trust em, too risky.[/QUOTE]
You are an atrocious poster. There's a MASSIVE fucking difference between police officer and being black.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35832385]You are an atrocious poster. There's a MASSIVE fucking difference between police officer and being black.[/QUOTE]
Not when you're delusional.
they focused on one little piece of lankist's sentence, exploded its meaning into something random and non-related, then ran with it in a flash across like two pages of completely incomprehensible banter.
What kind of injuries did the would be robber have? The cop said he capped his ass 3 times.
[QUOTE=zerglingv2;35832966]What kind of injuries did the would be robber have? The cop said he capped his ass 3 times.[/QUOTE]
clearly not enough, according to facepaunch.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35831112]Do you know how defensive cops are of other cops? and when something bad happens, you'd be press to find a cop who doesn't want to rip the arms off of the guy who harmed their cop buddy.
[editline]5th May 2012[/editline]
There is nothing in the genetic code that makes black people more violent. But there is a LOT in the culture, protection and badge police in the US are surrounded with.[/QUOTE]
I never implied that there was, of course there's not. That belief is absurd. I simply just stated the fact that 51.2% of violent crimes are committed by African Americans, which is true. Of course it doesn't mean there's a genetic code that makes black people more violent. I don't think you understood, that's not even close to what I was trying to say.
[QUOTE=zacht_180;35835426]I never implied that there was, of course there's not. That belief is absurd. I simply just stated the fact that 51.2% of violent crimes are committed by African Americans, which is true. Of course it doesn't mean there's a genetic code that makes black people more violent. I don't think you understood, that's not even close to what I was trying to say.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying the two are incomparable. So if I'm not understanding you, you're either saying they are comparable or you're just putting that out there to be racist.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;35803199][URL]http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1128_aic.pdf[/URL]
I'm not sure if anyone outside of Australia can view the document, so i'll quote some of the conclusion just to make sure. If you still don't believe me I will get another Australian to verify it.
The basic outline of the study is whether the media-informed public view that sentences are too lenient is substantiated when people with more intimate knowledge of the case are asked (i.e: the jurors)
[Quote="AIC"]Public opinion surveys conducted worldwide over the last four decades have consistently
found that between 70 and 80 percent of respondents believe that sentences are too
lenient (Gelb 2006). Responding to research suggesting that judges are out of touch with
public opinion, Chief Justice Gleeson of the High Court of Australia suggested that, instead
of surveying uninformed members of the public, it might be more useful if jurors—as more
informed representatives of the public—were asked about the sentences in the particular
cases they have deliberated on[/Quote]
the conclusion itself is interesting, as it says:
[Quote="AIC"]The results show that a
substantial majority of jurors with firsthand
experience of judges consider that sentences
are appropriate and that judges are in touch
with public opinion. By surveying members
of the public who have engaged directly
with the criminal justice system in a much
more meaningful way than those who form
their perceptions secondhand via the mass
media, the study has shown that the jury
survey methodology provides a better
approach to finding a reliable source of
informed public judgment of judicial
sentencing.[/Quote]
So shut the fuck up about it being too lenient you uniformed troglodytes[/QUOTE]
everyone shutup
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.