I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.

[Rhea]

Someone recently remarked, "A Good Cop™ is a cop who turns in a Bad Cop. I have never yet met a Good Cop."

Something to think about.

I think the biggest grievance of everyone who is protesting (literally or figuratively) these abuses is that the cops never seem to face consequences. Not the same as the rest of us, and sometimes just not at all. That the "brotherhood" closes in and protects the bad apples. Are there few? Are there many? Does it matter when all of them are protected internally? One bad apple does spoil the barrel. Get it out fast. But they don't and therein lies the abuse.


"A Good Cop™ is a cop who turns in a Bad Cop. I have never yet met a Good Cop."

 

[Keith&Co.]

I just want to know on what basis you make these accusations?

Because he's Russian, so he has special insight into what constitutes Real Abuse by Cops.
Apparently a Russian woman would have obeyed the cop and figured a missing daughter was her problem, not the cop's. Hopefully, the kid'd turn up again someday.

 

[barbos]

It was certainly overblown.

... is an assumption you start with in this case. We know it is an assumption because you cannot determine the case is "overblown"

Nope, that's not an assumption, that's a reasonable conclusion based on the read.

unless you are using your own experiences and/or imagination to conclude that the cop's behavior was initially appropriate under the circumstances.

Now back to police abuse part. You want abuse? then go to Russia and get arrested and die because you are sick and they would not let you medical help.

You know what? Normally I would point out breathtakingly meaningless the "What about the other guy?" argument really is in these cases. It's a red herring, an attempt to minimize one's own wrongs by pointing out that somewhere in the universe, things are worse. And ten years ago, that would only have been a red herring.

Nope, I merely gave you a perspective.

But it's not even that anymore, considering that instead of Russia you could just go to Missouri...

Or better China, where they executed innocent man who actually tried to help the victim, not exactly an abuse, but this is seriously fucked up justice system.

Or better yet, Texas, where at least two men have been executed for being an accomplice to a murder even though the actual shooter is serving a life sentence.

You're satisfied with playing that game? You're basically advocating the United States adopt as its national motto "America: Still better than North Korea!"

I am not advocating that.

I think most Western countries aspire to do better than 2nd and 3rd world totalitarian shit holes.

And you already do better
My point is, if you want change to better then try to find real cases, because fake ones only hurt your point.

There you go again, assuming that this is an account of a "fake" case of police misconduct for no other reason except your predisposition to believe the cop was right in the first place.

Cop has not even told his version
I really meant the whole set of police abuse stories which happened lately.
I know it's not popular view here but I just find it hard to use these cases against police.

"Give him the benefit of the doubt" is not a policy that leads to reform.

I guess you support executing people even if there is a doubt they are guilty.

 

[barbos]

I just want to know on what basis you make these accusations?

Because he's Russian, so he has special insight into what constitutes Real Abuse by Cops.
Apparently a Russian woman would have obeyed the cop and figured a missing daughter was her problem, not the cop's. Hopefully, the kid'd turn up again someday.

And you are biased against russians!

 

[barbos]

I think the biggest grievance of everyone who is protesting (literally or figuratively) these abuses is that the cops never seem to face consequences. Not the same as the rest of us, and sometimes just not at all. That the "brotherhood" closes in and protects the bad apples. Are there few? Are there many? Does it matter when all of them are protected internally? One bad apple does spoil the barrel. Get it out fast. But they don't and therein lies the abuse.

That I agree with.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

... is an assumption you start with in this case. We know it is an assumption because you cannot determine the case is "overblown"

Nope, that's not an assumption, that's a reasonable conclusion based on the read.

The conclusion wasn't based on anything you READ, though. Remember, you initially replied with "rules are rules." The rules you claimed were not being followed weren't actually specified in the text, nor was the justification of the cop's behavior.

You are, in other words, supplying information from your own mind that ISN'T included in the text. That information you supplied on your own are your assumptions.

Nope, I merely gave you a perspective.

No, you attempted to draw a comparison between what we ARE talking about (over-policing in America) to an unrelated situation that you feel is comparatively worse (over-policing in Russia) as if the unrelated situation changes anything about the situation we're talking about.

Me: "We can't see Ganymede right now because the moon is too bright..."
You: "You think the moon is bright? Try looking for Ganymede during the daytime."

Cop has not even told his version

Which is entirely irrelevant UNLESS you assume that the cop's version would be a) significantly different from Raven's and b) more truthful than Raven's.

Pst! Your bias is showing.

"Give him the benefit of the doubt" is not a policy that leads to reform.

I guess you support executing people even if there is a doubt they are guilty.

Convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutions do not, and this needs to be as true for civilians as it is for cops.

If Michael Brown deserves to stand trial for assaulting Daren Wilson, then Daren Wilson deserves to stand trial for shooting him.
If Eric Garner deserves to stand trial for resisting arrest, then the NYPD officers who arrested him deserve to stand trial for killing him.
To BOTH cases, it simply follows that people who are killed by police officers don't REALLY deserve trials; the officer's weapons and/or authority is all the trial they will ever get.

IF those officers really did nothing wrong, IF the accusations against them are truly overblown or fake, then they should be acquitted. Justice is served.

 

[RavenSky]

... is an assumption you start with in this case. We know it is an assumption because you cannot determine the case is "overblown"

Nope, that's not an assumption, that's a reasonable conclusion based on the read.

not by anyone except you. What do you think was "overblown"? That my child was missing in the crowd? That I was looking for her when the cop came up and ordered me to the grassy area? That he refused to listen when I told him my daughter was missing? Which part is "overblown" and why?

unless you are using your own experiences and/or imagination to conclude that the cop's behavior was initially appropriate under the circumstances.

Now back to police abuse part. You want abuse? then go to Russia and get arrested and die because you are sick and they would not let you medical help.

that happens in the U.S. too. It does not negate what happened to me, nor does it explain why you are choosing to so adamantly declare my experience to be false. Why are you doing that?

Cop has not even told his version.

and I have challenged you multiple times to present anything remotely reasonable to explain why the cop ignored that I was telling him my child was missing to instead insist I had to move to a place of his demand. The fact that you can make up completely false nonsense like I was drunk, but you can't come up with any remotely reasonable explanation for why a cop would ignore that a child was missing tells me that you can't, but you also won't admit that you are in the wrong here.

You admit that pepper spray cop was an asshole, but you can't admit that a cop who ignores a missing child to bully her mother is an even bigger asshole. You just continue to call my experience "fake"

 

[ksen]

Serious? You are seriously trying to use the "rules are rules" line on me? I complied with the rules by allowing my daughter to be separated from me at the que.

Well, you should not have let her go into separate line and I am reasonably sure that they would have let you do that.

I didn't ask for any special exceptions. Did you completely ignore that part?

I thought you were disrupting orderly processing of your line by trying to watch your daughter.
As I said you should have taken daughter into your line.

Kindly tell me what "rule" I broke after my daughter went missing, and explain why that rule was more important than the fact that my daughter was missing?

Again, you should have taken daughter into your line.

haha, you're a hoot

 

[ksen]

No reason.

Just in case, I was talking about american police, russian police is pretty crappy.

hey, rules are rules.

 

[ksen]

I find it highly interesting that you continue to defend a cop you know nothing about, and continue to characterize my personal experience as false.

I am not defending that cop.

lol, ok

 

[Underseer]

I don't remember seeing this posted here before.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...-you-dont-want-to-get-hurt-dont-challenge-me/



Nope, nothing out of line there.

And you don’t have to submit to an illegal stop or search. You can refuse consent to search your car or home if there’s no warrant (though a pat-down is still allowed if there is cause for suspicion). Always ask the officer whether you are under detention or are free to leave. Unless the officer has a legal basis to stop and search you, he or she must let you go.

So his advice after telling you not to argue with the police is to assert your rights. Ok, I'm sure that's always a winning strategy and won't be taken by the officer as a threat to his authority.

Finally, cops are legally prohibited from using excessive force: The moment a suspect submits and stops resisting, the officers must cease use of force.

Uh huh.

We have a justice system in which you are presumed innocent; if a cop can do his or her job unmolested, that system can run its course. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don’t challenge a cop during a stop.

Because officers and prosecutors will be sure to investigate your complaints to the best of their ability instead of trying to help their brother officer cover his ass.

eta: and when did the Washington Post become ThoughtCatalog?

This could have been written by any Soviet cop during the height of the Cold War.

We used to ridicule the Soviets for running a police state in which arguments like this were considered valid.

PS -- My apologies to any conservatives or libertarians (who are completely different things, I swear) who feel that I am "attacking your freedom" by criticizing this cop.

 

[ksen]

I'm amazed barbos is still single.

 

[repoman]

I think that many libertarians would think that cops are out of control. Otherwise, they are probably a relatively successful white person who wants to make sure that police can torture a defendant who burglarized their house. Then honestly they were never libertarians to begin with.

 

[Davka]

I think that many libertarians would think that cops are out of control. Otherwise, they are probably a relatively successful white person who wants to make sure that police can torture a defendant who burglarized their house. Then honestly they were never libertarians to begin with.

True libertarians should be up in arms about this sort of thing.

I used to call myself a libertarian, before the teabaggers confiscated the word.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think that many libertarians would think that cops are out of control. Otherwise, they are probably a relatively successful white person who wants to make sure that police can torture a defendant who burglarized their house. Then honestly they were never libertarians to begin with.

True libertarians should be up in arms about this sort of thing.

I used to call myself a libertarian, before the teabaggers confiscated the word.

One of my best friends calls himself libertarian, but he calls it European libertarianism IOW anarcho-syndicalism. It always grates on me a bit when he uses the term libertarian, he's as far from the tea party or the GOP as it's possible to get.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Hey, the word came up on the open market and an alternative definition was more successful than yours. If you don't like it, get up off the couch and start an international language conglomerate to implement your definition.

It's not the Teabaggers fault that you guys are lazier about defining words than they are.

 

[credoconsolans]

"cop" writes:

and it makes my stomach churn. As a middle-aged white woman, I grew up with the "Officer Friendly" model, and most of my personal encounters with police officers have been positive or, at least, neutral. Most of my encounters with police have also been when they were being civilians themselves - home buyers, Girl Scout leaders, neighbors, etc - which creates a very different dynamic. My point being that, as individual human beings, nearly every cop I have ever met has been a wonderful, caring person.

But in the majority of encounters I've had with police officers in their official capacities, the incidents have been negative.............

Rules are rules. Police can't make exception because everyone then will want one.
Have you tried to explain that you want your daughter with you in the "bag" line even though she had no bag?
I did not go to concerts but my encounters with police were all good. Even when I run a stop sign.

This is what I was thinking. Your daughter is young, just keep your hand on her shoulder and have her with you as you go in line.

 

[Davka]

Rules are rules. Police can't make exception because everyone then will want one.
Have you tried to explain that you want your daughter with you in the "bag" line even though she had no bag?
I did not go to concerts but my encounters with police were all good. Even when I run a stop sign.

This is what I was thinking. Your daughter is young, just keep your hand on her shoulder and have her with you as you go in line.

Hindsight is 20/20. That still doesn't excuse the cop's behavior.

 

[barbos]

This is what I was thinking. Your daughter is young, just keep your hand on her shoulder and have her with you as you go in line.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Not for everyone here.

That still doesn't excuse the cop's behavior.

Yeah.
Speaking of irrationally over-worrying parents (mothers really), one thing which was pretty surprising to me in US is the fact you can't have children under 14 alone at home. And at the same time it's legal to teach/have their kids to shoot guns. I mean as long as "responsible" adult is present anything is allowed.

 

[RavenSky]

Hindsight is 20/20.

Not for everyone here.

That still doesn't excuse the cop's behavior.

Yeah.
Speaking of irrationally over-worrying parents (mothers really), one thing which was pretty surprising to me in US is the fact you can't have children under 14 alone at home. And at the same time it's legal to teach/have their kids to shoot guns. I mean as long as "responsible" adult is present anything is allowed.

Now your really wacked attitude, your blind defense of a bully cop, and your mischaracterizations of the incident and of me make total sense.

As for Davka's comment that hindsight is 20/20 - maybe. Maybe not. Maybe insisting outside in the que that my daughter stay with me would have resulted in neither of us being allowed in the concert at all. That's part of the problem with hindsight. It isn't really 20/20. And as I have pointed out multiple times, your deflection to the outside que doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with a bully cop's behavior inside the park. We could have gone through the que together and still been separated by the crush of the crowd inside; and I still would have needed to look for her, and bully cop would have still been bully cop.

But this thread is not about me; nor is it about your failures with and crappy attitude towards women. It is about a cop writing an OP telling the general public: "in the overwhelming majority of cases it is not the cops, but the people they stop, who can prevent detentions from turning into tragedies." I call bullshit on that cop's claim; and I do so from personal experience and observation. I do so from the perspective of someone raised to trust and respect police. I do so from the perspective of someone who's encounters have far better outcomes than many people have - I did not get tazed, beaten, killed, nor even arrested. But it comes from the perspective of someone who - by race and economic position *should* never have seen then bad side of policing - still ended up witnessing two completely unrelated police officers behaving very very very badly towards me, and multiple cases of police racially profiling others. No amount of you trying to blame me out of your own weird petty anti-mother biases will change that reality.

All you have really done is illustrated once again how the irrational defense of police causes fundamentalists/misogynists/racists to slander, denigrate and dismiss even the most trust-worthy witnesses.