What's new

Tough Day To Be In Law Enforcement

I wonder if it's true, as you claim, that "many police officers" have had sex with people in their custody. If so that is really sick. I have a couple of friends from high-school who became cops. We've kept in touch over the years. I have great respect for these guys. I could not imagine them doing the sorts of things you and others are insinuating that cops do. It doesn't surprise me that there are some bad cops, though. I'm certain that some real dirtbags are attracted to the idea of carrying a gun and wielding power. Those sorts of people need to be removed from the police force, not only for the safety of the public but for the reputation of law enforcement. I think everyone is in agreement on this point. The area where I think there is a wide disparity of opinions concerns what percentage of the police force is dirty.
Unfortunately there isn't good record access and record keeping. Agencies have no repercussion from not reporting. But this report is trying to get all the records it can but it's barely any of the 18,000+ agencies across the USA. The claim the focused on the larger ones and got 700 of them.

"They include 22,924 investigations of officers using excessive force, 3,145 allegations of rape, child molestation and other sexual misconduct and 2,307 cases of domestic violence by officers."

These are just accusations so who knows how many actually did it, but I lean towards most and they are the tip of the iceberg since the majority of people raped or sexually assaulted, especially by someone in power never report it. It's roughly 3/4 are not reported and a decent percentage is have the report falsified.

That's over a decade but that's far from a complete list. That also doesn't include all the stations and all the police that it wasn't on record for.

Who knows the extent of these things since we aren't holding them accountable. There needs to be transparency so good cops can survive and bad go away.

As far as old friends go, I get that but who actually knows how they actually are.
 
Last edited:
The blue wall of silence is very real as well. Cops will keep their mouths shut for each other even when they know the other cop did something wrong. Cops don't snitch.
 
I had occasion to post this video in response to a question in the 2020 election thread. Since it bears on the claims involving Antifa involvement in recent violence at the protests, it may be worth a look to those following that aspect in this thread as well....



You don't honestly believe that or call that journalism, do you?

Fact checking doesn't mean asking professors their opinion.
 
I had occasion to post this video in response to a question in the 2020 election thread. Since it bears on the claims involving Antifa involvement in recent violence at the protests, it may be worth a look to those following that aspect in this thread as well....




The best part is reading the YouTube comments.

I think you and Thriller are probably the only ones that like that investigation and believe it.

They flat out start off the video by lying. Lol
 
You don't honestly believe that or call that journalism, do you?

Fact checking doesn't mean asking professors their opinion.

They also examined arrests records from across the country. Found no individuals with Antifa affiliations. You can’t expect a short video like that to reproduce their research on every single arrest record. They presented their conclusions in the video. I believe they can back up the conclusions with their research. You would rather believe they are simply lying through their teeth, I imagine? As far as what I believe, the fact that both Trump and Barr were pronouncing Antifa was behind violence at the protests was plenty reason enough to consider the claim to be BS. Those two promoting the belief was an excellent reason to doubt it was factual.

I did not include the Washington Post article, which included that video. I did include it in the 2020 Election thread. Here is that piece, which describes how they approached and went about the research conducted by the journalists. You can review it. It has more info than was summarized in the short video. And, yeah, I do call what they conducted investigative journalism, as a matter of fact. And you can double check them by also going over arrests records from coast to coast. You do that, prove them wrong, and get back to me someday..


“The Fact Checker video team spoke to witnesses and reviewed arrest records, federal charges, intelligence reports, online conversations and dozens of videos and photos of violent incidents from the early days of protests in Minneapolis to determine whether a coordinated antifa campaign was responsible for the violence.”
——————————————————————
Now, you do some investigative journalism, to the same or greater extent as described by the Post journalists, you investigate the arrests records at demonstrations around the country, and you counter their findings by showing me all the many people arrested that you find had associations with Antifa. You do that. Or, you can say, as you did say, earlier in this thread “I knew it was Antifa as soon as I saw the video“, and you can call that your idea of investigative journalism. After all, you yourself claimed “it ain’t rocket science”.
 
Last edited:
The best part is reading the YouTube comments.

I think you and Thriller are probably the only ones that like that investigation and believe it.

They flat out start off the video by lying. Lol

I suggested earlier in this thread that a good % of the people acting destructively in the protests would be people who simply enjoy behaving that way. Such people show up at all such demonstrations, to take advantage of the large crowds and atmosphere of anger to do what they enjoy doing. They did not start out lying. They started out mistaken, believing it was outside agitators. Turns out I was correct, very early in this thread, when, I suggested the very conclusion they eventually reached: local people acting like hooligans, to borrow an old fashion term. Not led by political extremists at either end of the spectrum. This happens at many such large events. I have seen it personally, first hand witnessing, at many events in the race riots of ‘67 and ‘68, in the Civil Rights and Anti-War movement of the 60’s and early 70’s. I knew it would be the case in these demonstrations as well, and I was correct.

Again, you repeat the amount of research done by the Post journalists, and you prove their conclusions were mistaken. In the 2020 election thread, I suggested “take this for what it’s worth, take it as you would”. You have done so. Fine, that’s exactly what I suggested. But, you never even considered the research that underpinned the conclusions rendered in the short video. Which is fine, because, frankly, your opinion means **** to me. And that’s fine too....
 
Last edited:
The best part is reading the YouTube comments.

I think you and Thriller are probably the only ones that like that investigation and believe it.

They flat out start off the video by lying. Lol

I would not spend effort wondering what I believe, what @The Thriller believes, or anyone else for that matter. It's likely most of us, at least in part, believe what we want to believe. Not trusting Trump or Barr to be truthful is sufficient for me.

Here you can check the credentials and professional affiliations and awards of the Post journalists that work on The Fact Checker. The link may not take. If so, the information is available as a link at the bottom of the Post article that I posted for you earlier.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/about-fact-checker/
 
Back
Top