Bad Cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
k_dawg said:
Jeff, did you even *BOTHER* to read your citations? If you had, you ought to have noticed one major difference. Here, let me quote them for you.

Byrnes, 55, was arrested at the woman's Lake Saint Louis home Wednesday night. He has been charged with misdemeanor counts of patronizing prostitution and stalking.

Dr. Charles Earnshaw Jr. of Alton was charged Tuesday. He was arrested Saturday night in the drive-through lane of an Arby's restaurant in Bethalto. Earnshaw had veered off Illinois Route 140, crossed a grass strip and struck a mailbox in front of the restaurant with his pickup just before 10 p.m., said Bethalto Police Chief Alan Winslow.

Police arrested Thomas Miskel, 43, of Imperial, on Monday and brought him to the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton, where bond was set at $100,000.

Notice the difference? These three were arrested and charged and treated like any other citizen.

The police officer *however* was not.


THAT is the difference. THAT is what I personally object to, time after time. This special treatment that they give police officers. This special system of "justice". It has less to do about the actions of the individual who commits a crime. It has to do entirely on how they "police" their own.

Can't you understand why private citizens would be so concerned about this? This is not "cop bashing", this is no different than the civil rights movement, wanting equal protection and due process for everyone equally.

That's a great point, and I completely agree...however, we have to admit that some folks use this as an entry point to bash cops, they just hate the police. That doesn't make what the cops do any less wrong or your point any less valid, though the overly-pro-LEO crowd seems to think otherwise. The answer is somewhere in the middle.
 
Roundeyesamurai said:
You know, one of the things I find personally objectionable about (too many) people, is their purported clairvoyance. Particularly, the fact that so many people are aware of every piece of evidence in a case, every legal issue involved, and are able to "KNOW" exactly whether a person is guilty or not, just from a newspaper article or TV broadcast.

How do YOU know whether there was sufficient evidence to arrest him for a violation of law?

How do YOU know that the victim's statement is factual?

Did you participate in the investigation of the alleged offense?

You see, you're talking about civil rights being violated- and when it comes to civil rights in criminal matters, the most basic right is this:

A person is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

"Civil rights" appears, to you, to not apply to those with whom you have disagreement. You'd prefer to make them "civil privileges", applicable only to those whom you favor.

The best course of action in this case would be independent investigation by the State. Let someone not associated with the agency in question investigate whether a crime was committed or not.

Trial by media, as has happened in this instance, does nothing but inflame people (as evidenced by this thread).

"We all know he's guilty" is the sentiment of a lynch mob, not a people interested in civil rights.

Well, he lied in the investigation of the facts, changing his story more than a few times. So, I think it's fair to say he's guilty of obstruction of justice.

But since we aren't in a court of law, the presumption of innocence doesn't necessarily apply, does it? That's a limitation on state action, not public discussion.
 
NineseveN said:
That's a great point, and I completely agree...however, we have to admit that some folks use this as an entry point to bash cops, they just hate the police. That doesn't make what the cops do any less wrong or your point any less valid, though the overly-pro-LEO crowd seems to think otherwise. The answer is somewhere in the middle.

Thus, the need for both sides to set aside prejudice and actually have the conversation. Currently, a few people have the conversation while one side yells "all cops are rapists who get away with it" while the other side doesn't discuss the facts and just yells "everybody does it, don't pick on us."

Gee, it gets kind of hard to slam Congress for this behavior when we can see it ourselves in THR and other forums, doesn't it?
 
buzz_knox said:
Thus, the need for both sides to set aside prejudice and actually have the conversation. Currently, a few people have the conversation while one side yells "all cops are rapists who get away with it" while the other side doesn't discuss the facts and just yells "everybody does it, don't pick on us."

Gee, it gets kind of hard to slam Congress for this behavior when we can see it ourselves in THR and other forums, doesn't it?

I agree completely. How we rectify it is another matter...
 
buzz_knox said:
But since we aren't in a court of law, the presumption of innocence doesn't necessarily apply, does it? That's a limitation on state action, not public discussion.

Which brings me back to this:

Roundeyesamurai said:
"We all know he's guilty" is the sentiment of a lynch mob, not a people interested in civil rights.

On the other hand, I have to give props for this comment:

buzz_knox said:
Thus, the need for both sides to set aside prejudice and actually have the conversation. Currently, a few people have the conversation while one side yells "all cops are rapists who get away with it" while the other side doesn't discuss the facts and just yells "everybody does it, don't pick on us."

Gee, it gets kind of hard to slam Congress for this behavior when we can see it ourselves in THR and other forums, doesn't it?
 
Roundeyesamurai said:
You know, one of the things I find personally objectionable about (too many) people, is their purported clairvoyance. Particularly, the fact that so many people are aware of every piece of evidence in a case, every legal issue involved, and are able to "KNOW" exactly whether a person is guilty or not, just from a newspaper article or TV broadcast.

How do YOU know whether there was sufficient evidence to arrest him for a violation of law?

How do YOU know that the victim's statement is factual?

Did you participate in the investigation of the alleged offense?

You see, you're talking about civil rights being violated- and when it comes to civil rights in criminal matters, the most basic right is this:

A person is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

"Civil rights" appears, to you, to not apply to those with whom you have disagreement. You'd prefer to make them "civil privileges", applicable only to those whom you favor.

The best course of action in this case would be independent investigation by the State. Let someone not associated with the agency in question investigate whether a crime was committed or not.

Trial by media, as has happened in this instance, does nothing but inflame people (as evidenced by this thread).

"We all know he's guilty" is the sentiment of a lynch mob, not a people interested in civil rights.

I do not know if he is guilty or not. Which is why a *JURY OF HIS PEERS* should decide. Not you, not me.Not his buddies on the police force and in the DA's office.

That is right, I am a strong believer that law enforcement officers should go thru the exact same justice system. No one should be held below or above the law.
 
k_dawg said:
I do not know if he is guilty or not. Which is why a *JURY OF HIS PEERS* should decide. Not you, not me.

That's precisely what I am saying.

k_dawg said:
Not his buddies on the police force and in the DA's office.

That is right, I am a strong believer that law enforcement officers should go thru the exact same justice system. No one should be held below or above the law.

Who says police officers don't? Show proof. "Everyone knows it!" isn't proof.

A newspaper article doesn't constitute proof, either. It constitutes a statement designed to appeal to its readership.
 
Roundeyesamurai said:
That's precisely what I am saying.



Who says police officers don't? Show proof. "Everyone knows it!" isn't proof.

A newspaper article doesn't constitute proof, either. It constitutes a statement designed to appeal to its readership.

Well, what will constitute proof? We don't exactly have access to the document that says "officer X was not charged with [insert crime here] because he's a cop."
 
Right, and not everyone brought to the attention of the police and the DA is charged. I don't know if she consented, but neither one of them is real bright.

I can't believe I read all the way through this thread looking for a smoking gun. Wrong forum. Silly me.

John
 
Okay, let us go thru it step by step:

Was this officer initially arrested, brought into the precint, and then brought before a judge?

If not, why not?
 
buzz_knox said:
Well, what will constitute proof? We don't exactly have access to the document that says "officer X was not charged with [insert crime here] because he's a cop."

Precisely.

JohnBT said:
Right, and not everyone brought to the attention of the police and the DA is charged. I don't know if she consented, but neither one of them is real bright.

I can't believe I read all the way through this thread looking for a smoking gun. Wrong forum. Silly me.

John

Again, precisely.
 
k_dawg said:
Okay, let us go thru it step by step:

Was this officer initially arrested, brought into the precint, and then brought before a judge?

If not, why not?

I can tell from your post that you've never actually been involved in the criminal justice system to any significant degree.

"Arrest him, bring him into the 'precinct', and then bring him before a judge" may be how it works on TV, and how petty offenses may be handled in some states, but there is quite a bit more to any felony case than this.
 
Okay, let us go thru it step by step:

Was this officer initially arrested, brought into the precint, and then brought before a judge?
Which is what so ticks me off. If any of us brought a drunk girl home and when she sobered up cried rape we would be arrested, maybe not convicted, but odds are we would be arrested and sit through at least a hearing or two if not an outright trial. Cop busts into the wrong house in the becoming more and more common tacticle storm the castle type warrent executions gets shot and the homeowner goes away for murder. It is BS and slanted. Cops in general I have no problem with, it is ones that get special treatment and departments the protect them when they do things that would see us at the very least arrested I have a problem with.
 
Lupinus said:
Which is what so ticks me off. If any of us brought a drunk girl home and when she sobered up cried rape we would be arrested, maybe not convicted, but odds are we would be arrested and sit through at least a hearing or two if not an outright trial.

Oh, that's how it always happens, eh? Please, enlighten us, exactly how many rape cases have you worked as a police officer?

Lupinus said:
Cop busts into the wrong house in the becoming more and more common tacticle storm the castle type warrent executions gets shot and the homeowner goes away for murder.

I could have predicted that this would be brought into the conversation.

What bearing does it have to this individual matter?

Lupinus said:
It is BS and slanted.

So are alot of the criticisms being levelled.

Lupinus said:
Cops in general I have no problem with, it is ones that get special treatment and departments the protect them when they do things that would see us at the very least arrested I have a problem with.

Coulda fooled me; judging by the rest of your posts, it seems that you DO have a problem with "cops in general", specifically because you DO believe that most (if not all) police officers get preferential treatment.
 
12-34hom said:
Cry me a river, well at least one officer was doing his job....

Pointing fingers, i call em like i read em. or just taking the trash out.

12-34hom.

And I hope you were pointing your finger and reading the text that stated "Salt Lake City Police officer named Darrel Goodrich " South Salt Lake and Salt Lake City are different entities so, different police departments.

Salt Lake City has a very good police department.

And since,as you state "i call em like i read em". When you read Al Gore's statement about him developing the internet,you assumed that was true?
 
k_dawg said,
Jeff, did you even *BOTHER* to read your citations? If you had, you ought to have noticed one major difference. Here, let me quote them for you.

Byrnes, 55, was arrested at the woman's Lake Saint Louis home Wednesday night. He has been charged with misdemeanor counts of patronizing prostitution and stalking.

Dr. Charles Earnshaw Jr. of Alton was charged Tuesday. He was arrested Saturday night in the drive-through lane of an Arby's restaurant in Bethalto. Earnshaw had veered off Illinois Route 140, crossed a grass strip and struck a mailbox in front of the restaurant with his pickup just before 10 p.m., said Bethalto Police Chief Alan Winslow.

Police arrested Thomas Miskel, 43, of Imperial, on Monday and brought him to the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton, where bond was set at $100,000.

Notice the difference? These three were arrested and charged and treated like any other citizen.

The police officer *however* was not.

A search of the same 7 days brings up these articles:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...DF9569A137F274CF8625710B001E160F?OpenDocument
BONNE TERRE: Prison guard is held on gun, drug charges

02/04/2006

A corrections officer at a state prison in Bonne Terre was arrested this week on suspicion of sneaking weapons and drugs into the prison.

Bonne Terre police arrested Seth Barton, 47, of Lesterville, Mo., late Tuesday night after staff at the Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center searched Barton's car and found bags of marijuana, marijuana seeds, a loaded .357 handgun and ammunition, drug paraphernalia and a hunting knife, police said.

Barton was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, and unlawful possession of a weapon at a correctional facility, police said.

He was in the St. Francois County Jail on $50,000 bond, police said.

Deputy is charged in killing of two men
By Tim Bryant
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/03/2006

TROY, MO.


A Lincoln County sheriff’s deputy acted recklessly when he fired shots through a pickup’s rear window and killed two men last fall, authorities said Thursday after filing felony charges against the former officer.

Nicholas Forler, 26, of Troy, is charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter. Accompanied by his lawyer, Joe McCulloch, Forler surrendered to authorities and was released after posting $30,000 bail. Involuntary manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of seven years in prison.

After a brief chase that ended in a driveway, police say, Forler shot Tyler Teasley, 22, of Silex, and Michael Brown, 23, of Troy, on the night of Oct. 23 as they sat in Teasley’s extended-cab pickup. Both men died of head wounds.

Teasley’s father, Brent Teasley, said Forler should have been charged with a more serious crime.

"Obviously, whenever you shoot somebody in the back of the head, it’s first-degree murder," Teasley said.

Lincoln County Sheriff Dan Torres, who dismissed Forler after the charges were filed, said that before the shooting, the deputy had been "a very good employee." Forler had been a deputy for three years.

"He was an extraordinarily good detective," Torres said, adding that Forler had been promoted to supervisor of a road patrol.

Missouri Highway Patrol Sgt. J. Sam Steward said in a court document that the shooting happened after Forler tried to stop Teasley’s truck for speeding. The Highway Patrol investigated the shooting. After the chase, the truck stopped in a driveway just off Highway 47, a short distance west of Troy. Forler got out of his patrol car, which he had stopped behind the pickup, and stood between the vehicles.

Steward gave this account:

As the truck began to roll slowly backward, Forler shouted for it to stop, then "recklessly fired" a shot from his .40-caliber Glock pistol at the driver’s side of the truck’s tinted rear window. He shouted a second time, then fired again. Forler then moved out of the way of the truck, which rolled into the front of the deputy’s patrol car.

Brown had been seated behind Teasley, the driver. The deaths outraged the men’s family and friends, who have demonstrated regularly outside the sheriff’s office.

Torres said Thursday that authorities owed the families and Forler a "complete and thorough investigation in order to determine all the facts." The sheriff declined to discuss the shooting in detail because of what he said were pending civil suits filed by the families against his department.

Brown’s mother, Donna Brown, said she preferred more serious charges against Forler but was satisfied with involuntary manslaughter.

Misty Brown, 22, a cousin who had identified Brown’s body for authorities, said: "I’d like the cop to know that’s the last image in my head of my cousin and it’s his fault. I’d like to eventually sit down and talk to him face to face — see if he has any remorse."

Janice Spires, an aunt of Brown’s, said her family is "terribly disappointed" and "shocked" with the decision to charge Forler with manslaughter instead of a more serious crime.

"Our family has been in agony for months, and we feel this is a slap in the face," Spires added.

Teasley and Brown had been among six people — three men and three women — in the truck. Two of the women have said the deputy fired into the truck without warning. They added that the truck rolled backward because Teasley had left the vehicle out of gear.

One of the women said the six friends were "freaking out" over being pulled over because they had alcohol in the car. They were celebrating the 18th birthday of the third woman in the vehicle.

Attorney General Jay Nixon’s office filed the charges in Lincoln County Circuit Court. Nixon’s office took over the case after the county prosecutor, John Richards, recused himself from the matter.

Adam Kealoha Causey of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.

[email protected] | 636-255-7212

Three Illinois Officers Charged For Possessing Submachine Guns At Home

MICHAEL SHAW
St. Louis Post-Dispatch


The charges:


Three officers and a doctor are accused of having submachine guns


What's next:


All four face prosecution in federal court in East St. Louis.


Three Illinois State Police officers, who could legally handle submachine guns for their jobs, have been charged with violating federal firearms regulations for allegedly having them at home, officials announced Tuesday.

The troopers -- two assigned to District 11 at Collinsville and one to District 18 at Litchfield -- were placed on paid leave while their cases are handled in federal court in East St. Louis.

Also charged is a doctor, formerly of Glen Carbon, who allegedly lent one of the weapons to a trooper who said he test-fired it and gave it back.

There is no allegation that the men trafficked in illicit weapons or committed any crime beyond illegally possessing them. Authorities would not say what launched the nvestigation or how federal agents found out about the weapons.

U.S. Attorney Ed McNally said the fact that three defendants are law
enforcement officers does not matter.

"Teddy Roosevelt said, 'No man is above the law and no man below
it,'" McNally said at a news conference. "If the United States obtains sufficient evidence that the law has been violated, whether by a law enforcement officer or any other public official or a private
person, they will be prosecuted."

One of the defendants, Special Agent John Yard, 36, of Collinsville, had recently worked with federal agents investigating public corruption at East St. Louis City Hall. He's a nine-year veteran of the State Police.

Charges say Yard admitted borrowing a Colt AR-15 rifle that could be switched to fire in a fully automatic mode.

According to court documents, Dr. Harold Griffiths, 69, of Spaulding, Ill., formerly of Glen Carbon, told federal agents the gun had been converted into a fully automatic weapon. Spaulding is near Springfield.

Griffiths was among those charged in indictments Jan. 11 that were unsealed Tuesday.

The others are Sgt. James V. Vest, 39, of O'Fallon, who like Yard works in the Collinsville district, and Senior Master Trooper Greg Mugge, 51, of Jerseyville, who is assigned to Litchfield. Both admitted keeping rifles altered for automatic fire in their homes, according to the affidavits

Vest, a 16-year State Police veteran, said he bought his M-4/M-16 rifle in 1998 in California, according to court documents. Mugge, with 21 years in the department, told officials he bought his AR-15 rifle from a now-deceased licensed dealer in Harrisburg, ll., in the late 1970s or early '80s.

Under federal firearms laws, not even police officers can own weapons that can fire a steady stream of bullets with one squeeze of the trigger.

All four entered pleas of not guilty Tuesday and were released without having to post bail. None of them could be reached for comment.

They had agreed to be interviewed by agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, according to affidavits filed with the charges,and all consented to searches of their homes. The three weapons cited in the charges were all seized.

The charge of illegal possession of an automatic weapon carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, although federal guidelines suggest substantially less punishment for people with no previous criminal background.

A State Police spokesman said that if the troopers are convicted, a merit board would decide the fate of their jobs.

State Police Director Larry Trent attended the news conference and described his accused employees as "three otherwise good officers with good records."

"I'm very disappointed and I deeply regret the judgment used by three of our officers," Trent said.

You have to remember that the police are required to break certain certain laws in the course of their employment. So if you expect a police officer to be arrested immediately after a shooting incident, forget it. An investigation has to be conducted to determine if the shooting was in fact justified by law and by department policy.

Jeff
 
Oh, that's how it always happens, eh? Please, enlighten us, exactly how many rape cases have you worked as a police officer?
Did I say always? I know I have countless times seen police officers doing things that if I and other none cops if we did would be getting in trouble for.

I could have predicted that this would be brought into the conversation.

What bearing does it have to this individual matter?
On a cop rapping a drunk girl? Nothing. On cops who do bad things and either get a slap on the wrist or shushed up about and when noted on this board labled as cop bashing? Everything.

Coulda fooled me; judging by the rest of your posts, it seems that you DO have a problem with "cops in general", specifically because you DO believe that most (if not all) police officers get preferential treatment.
Well I don't don't have a problem with them in general. I have been friends with cops, have known cops, and when a cop pulls me over or I pass one on the street I don't thumb my nose at them and give them the benifit of the doubt they will be professional.

What I have a problem with are cops who are not professional, on a power trip, use the brotherhood with other cops or whatever you would like to call it to get away with crimes, and departments who have a mightier then thou above the law attitude.
 
You have to remember that the police are required to break certain certain laws in the course of their employment. So if you expect a police officer to be arrested immediately after a shooting incident, forget it. An investigation has to be conducted to determine if the shooting was in fact justified by law and by department policy.
I agree there. But taking a drunk girl home and doing what you want to her while she is passed out for the rest of us is rape. Taking home a drunk girl and fondeling (and likly more) is part of the job how exactly though? And how much of an investigation does it take to decide it is murder to shoot a man on the ground who is only getting up at your order? Or that a cop busting in the wrong door is breaking and entering and if you shoot and kill him that it is not murder?
 
Lupinus said:
What I have a problem with are cops who are not professional, on a power trip, use the brotherhood with other cops or whatever you would like to call it to get away with crimes, and departments who have a mightier then thou above the law attitude.

You must have visited South Salt Lake....
 
Lupinus said:
Did I say always? I know I have countless times seen police officers doing things that if I and other none cops if we did would be getting in trouble for.

Oh good, then you can tell us how many times you've reported such occurrences.

Lupinus said:
On a cop rapping a drunk girl? Nothing.

Exactly. Like most of your schtick, it has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.

Lupinus said:
Well I don't don't have a problem with them in general. I have been friends with cops, have known cops, and when a cop pulls me over or I pass one on the street I don't thumb my nose at them and give them the benifit of the doubt they will be professional.

In other words, when confronted by police, you become acquiescent, and reserve your criticisms for an anonymous venue (such as this one).

Lupinus said:
What I have a problem with are cops who are not professional, on a power trip, use the brotherhood with other cops or whatever you would like to call it to get away with crimes, and departments who have a mightier then thou above the law attitude.

I have a problem with unprofessional conduct as well.

As for the rest of your statement- prove that police officers "get away with crimes". Until you prove it, you're just blowing smoke (like so many other cop bashers on the 'Net).

Since you say you've "countless times seen police officers doing things", you should have no problem proving a few of them.
 
You have to remember that the police are required to break certain certain laws in the course of their employment. So if you expect a police officer to be arrested immediately after a shooting incident, forget it. An investigation has to be conducted to determine if the shooting was in fact justified by law and by department policy.
I agree there. Cops are impowered and rightfully so to do things the average person can't. I can't force another car to pull over, I can't enter anothers home without permission, I can't walk around (least in most states) with a gun on my hip, I can't detain people even temperarily until a matter is resolved, etc. People who argue cops shouldn't be able to do some things the general population can't need a reality check.

But taking a drunk girl home and doing what you want to her while she is passed out for the rest of us is rape. Taking home a drunk girl and fondeling (and likly more) is part of the job how exactly though? And how much of an investigation does it take to decide it is murder to shoot a man on the ground who is only getting up at your order? Or that a cop busting in the wrong door is breaking and entering and if you shoot and kill him that it is not murder?

Cops and the things cop do to do their job I have no problem with. Its ones/departments that put themselves above the law that I do.
 
Oh good, then you can tell us how many times you've reported such occurrences.
Five times that were worth reporting. Many smaller times particuarly on the roads where I would have gotten at least a ticket. Many more that I have read/seen on the news.

Exactly. Like most of your schtick, it has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.
My argument is as a whole. It is about cops that get slapped on the wrist or not held to the same standards of law and punishment as the rest of us. So yes, it's relavent to my argument and thinking.

In other words, when confronted by police, you become acquiescent, and reserve your criticisms for an anonymous venue (such as this one).
No, I give them the benifit of the doubt am polite and respectful. When they act like an ***** I call them on it to their face.

I love the one sheriff in Ohio who has started a blog on illegal imigration and when pulled over by one of his deputies who was going to say sorry and let the sheriff on his way ordered the deputy to write the tickey he was preparing to write before learning it was his boss he had just pulled over. Cops who are professional and don't put themselves above the law I like just fine. When they act like thugs or above the law or otherwise special just because of a badge that is another matter.
 
Jeff White said:
k_dawg said,




You have to remember that the police are required to break certain certain laws in the course of their employment. So if you expect a police officer to be arrested immediately after a shooting incident, forget it. An investigation has to be conducted to determine if the shooting was in fact justified by law and by department policy.

Jeff

Wow, raping a drunk girl is now "breaking certain certain laws in the course of their employment?"

Jesus, that's so phucked up, I dont know what to say...
 
Lupinous said;
I agree there. But taking a drunk girl home and doing what you want to her while she is passed out for the rest of us is rape. Taking home a drunk girl and fondeling (and likly more) is part of the job how exactly though?

No it's not part of the job. And what Burnham did was wrong. But here's where you and I disagree. I firmly believe that if the prosecutor though he could convict Burnham, he would have been charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. You seem to think he was given a pass because he was a police officer. While that may be possible, I (and probably every other officer on the forum) think that that is highly unlikely. Most likely there was not enough physical evidence that he touched her forcibly and she wasn't going to come off as a credible enough witness for her story to stand on it's own. You're basing your total argument on one side of the story. I don't know what Burnham's total statement was, neither do you. No one knows the whole story here, yet you are willing to say that Burnham cashed in his get out of jail free card because he was a police officer. Quite frankly, I think he wasn't charged because the prosecutor didn't think he could prove that Burnham was guilty.

Do you think that private citizens are always prosecuted for crimes the prosecutor knows they probably committed but can't prove? Let me tell you something, they aren't. I'd be willing to bet that if we replaced Burnham with a private citizen of any profession who picked the girl up and took her home to sleep it off and similar charges were made, and all the evidence was the same, no charges would have been filed against the private citizen either.

Would you have been happier if the prosecutor had charged Burnham, taken a case he most likely couldn't have won to court, and then lost? I doubt it. Your mind seems to be made up. Your posts them would probably be filled with hate for our jury system and you'd most likely still be posting that Burnham got off because he was a police officer. Only then you probably would have stretched reason by saying that Burnham was aquitted because the jury was in fear of reprisals.

Of course if Burnham was tried and aquitted, he could have most likely been re-instated on his job, with back pay.

As long as the system is run by human beings it's going to be imperfect. And as long as we're going to have members who are going immediately default to their prejudices, we're going to have these discussions here at THR.

Some of you need to look inward. You talk about the thin blue line mentality among the polcie officers on the board, at the same time you you point out every bias and antigun statement in an article posted about a shooting where a private citizen was involved. What should we call that? The brotherhood of the CCW? Funny, but I don't seem to recall any of us, saying that those articles are proof positive why private citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry guns.....:rolleyes:

Jeff
 
Lupinus said:
But taking a drunk girl home and doing what you want to her while she is passed out for the rest of us is rape.

Since you're absolutely positive that a crime occurred, prove it.

You're whining about a "cover-up"- prove that the crime occurred. Prove it to a standard that would be acceptable in a court of law (which is where you have said, repeatedly, that you want this police officer to end up).

Lupinus said:
Five times that were worth reporting. Many smaller times particuarly on the roads where I would have gotten at least a ticket. Many more that I have read/seen on the news.

And, once again, what did you do about them? Nothing, I would imagine.

As for the rest of your posts- why do you have such difficulty addressing the specific case in question?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top