Deus ex Pianoforte said:
There's an exception to every rule. I'm guessing you live in a bigger city, in which (surprise, surprise) cops DO cherry-pick which investigations to undertake and which people to pull over on the road. To investigate every single complaint would be ludicrous. A complete waste of the department's time, while more serious crimes would go unpunished.
so what "more serious" crimes have priority over a violent crime?
maybe arresting some dumbass teenager whos in possesion of marijuana? oh that is definitely more serious. A teenager on pot is definitely more destructive to society than some thug who violentely attacks people with weapons unprovoked. end sarcasm!
We all know cops place more priority on drug charges than a violent crime charge. That is messed up! instead of looking for people who have some pot on them, they could be investigating a murderer or looking for a real criminal like a rapist, a wife beater, a child abuser, or even a child molester. They spend so much money on developing profiling techniques to catch drug dealers, to train drug sniffing K-9s, but what they could be doing is spending that money to find better ways to catch a murderer or a child molester.
Its obvious that the justice system and the law enforcement system is broken!
Cops arent forced to enforce the law, its clearly their free choice.
News to me. Where do I sign up to be a cop, so I can sit in the police station all day long and play Nintendo DS? Sounds like fun.
well, you just admited they cherry pick which to enforce didnt you (see above)? if they can cherry pick, then its free choice.
Senators may write them, but cops are the ones who can deside if they should do anything about it. Sometimes a law does not need to be enforced!!!! ie. 1 mile over speed limit, just one of many examples. And sometimes it must be enforced no matter what, see violent crimes.
How do you know so much about what police officers need and don't need to do? Did you graduate from the academy? How long have you been on patrol? You remind me of all the people that cried bloody murder when Rodney King was beaten down for charging the police officers after being pulled over for DUI. Suddenly everyone is an expert on what "necessary force" is.
Yuo dont have to be an academy graduate or an experienced officer to see which laws clearly should have priority over others.
Your telling me you cant tell which should have more priority between going after someone who sped only 1 mile over Versus a violent offender? It doesnt take a genious to see that the violent offender has already created a victim, the guy speeding 1 mile over is only at risk of creating a victim (a small risk at that). someone who already created a victim is clearly of higher priority than someone who is only at risk, but has not yet created a victim. Sorry, no academie training required to see that the "1 mile over" should be ignored and that you need to go after the violent offender.
If I could kill a cop and get away with it, I would. I wouldnt actually kill him, there are some things worse than death. Id keep his ass alive for a very long time torturing him, Id use lots of methods used by the Saudis. He would beg for death, but He would never get it. Yeah, I really dont like cops (never been arrested BTW, but I strongly oppose how they immorally treat people in society)
You are making an enormous generalization based off of one incident. Considering you and your homies didn't hesitate to exact "street justice" on your friend's assailant, I'm guessing that this isn't the first time that you've committed a felony. I, as well as police officers can smell this, and honestly...I can't say that I really blame the police for ignoring certain petty acts of gang violence. However, this is not always the case as you would very much like to portray.
We only braught justice becuase the police didnt do their job. had they done their job, we wouldnt have resorted to what we did. Police officers cant really "smell" all that good to tell you the truth. The only thing theyre good at is spotting a druggy, but thats not too hard. They make poor judgements often. I was watching this show where they pulled a guy over for a traffic violation, and instead of just walking up to the car and explaining why he pulled him over, he told him to "show his hands". They guy he pulled over asked him why he did this, the cop said "you make me nervous, I dont know what you could do, you might shoot me, I cant predict the future etc." Its true that the cop couldnt tell the future and really know, but hes not totally ignorant! How many people has he pulled over in his time, and how many have actually pulled a gun on him? the answer is very likely to be that none of the traffic stops he had done resulted in a shooting. So given his own experience (which is statistical evidence suggesting hes unlikely to get shot), he had no real reason to get nervous or beleive he was at risk of being shot. The guy was driving a nice car, a kind of car that most rich law abiding white men drive (the guy that got pulled over was black). So a rich man is statistically even less likely to kill a cop. most cop killings are not by rich people. so given the fact that the guy had money and the cops own experience which say shootings are very rare, he had no reason to get nervous. He did not need to be able to see into the future! he had enough information available to him to tell him that he was at low risk. It was a bad judgement on the cops part and the cop probably only did what he did becuase he didnt like the fact that it was a black guy in a nice car. point being cops make poor judgements sometimes and arent really all that good at "smelling"
And THEN find the quote from me where I said that "cops arent capable of being corrupt." Then we'll discuss this word "naive."
so are you saying you agree they are capable of being corrupt or they are not capable of being corrupt? which is it?