Sadly, it's because these "good cops" all but never police their criminal brothers in blue, and the excessively few who have stood up are almost always threatened until they are run out of law enforcement.

Right now police departments are fighting tooth and nail against a new California law requiring them to disclose records of criminal misconduct committed by police and the investigations of that misconduct, and they are terrified that information is about to be public....only one reason for that.

When they catch a gang member who didn't pull any trigger but stood with those who did, alibiing them and hiding evidence for them, driving the getaway car and being a lookout, they gleefully call him a bad actor and charge him like the rest. Turnabout is fair play.

Don't get me wrong, I do not advocate murdering police, but I understand why many people would. They do not resemble the people who protect and serve all too often, and far worse imo the "good ones" ride or die with the worst ones. I only advocate avoiding them as much as possible, and if stopped, answering any question with "Am I suspected of committing a crime? Then kindly ask my attorney, I have nothing to say." as my brother's lawyer taught me, and trying to not be murdered...you can always sue over the civil liberty violations later.

I also believe 1000 good deeds don't erase one criminal one as they often argue....especially when it's your job.

That's why....but hey man, it's just, like, my opinion, man.

Here's an old ass song by The Offspring, a local socal band, with their not-so hit song titled "LAPD":

When cops are taking care of business I can understand
But the L.A. story's gone way out of hand
Their acts of aggression, they say they're justified
But it seems an obsession has started from the inside
They're shooting anyone who even tries to run
They're shooting little kids with toy guns
Take it to a jury but they don't give a damn
Because the one who tells the truth is always the policeman

Beat all the niggers
Beat whoever you see
Don't need a reason
(We're) L.A.P.D.

The city of L.A. feels like a prison
With helicopters overhead and bullets whizzing by
Martial law ain't no solution
Police brutality's just social pollution

Beat all the white trash
Beat whoever you see
Don't need a reason
(We're) L.A.P.D.

They say they're keeping the peace
But I'm not buying it because a billy club ain't much of a pacifier
"Protecting your freedom"
Now that's just a lie
It's an excuse for power that's more like an alibi
Law and order doesn't really matter
When you're the one getting bruisedand battered
You take it to a jury, they'll throw it in your face
Because justice in L.A. comes in a can of mace

This video is meaningless without time stamps. I've heard it was taken 4 hours after the event, more than enough time for Zimmerman to clean up. Is there no record of anyone anywhere treating his injuries?

-----
Please enjoy the Evil Zimmerman Theory, based on the idea that Zimmerman planned to corner and execute a minority, which is the radical left's consensus:

1) Zimmerman sees the target (Martin) and decides to directly confront him.

2) To cover his ass, Zimmerman calls 911, creating audio evidence of the encounter. Because his judge father is so beloved that every single cop on the force will hide or distort all forensic evidence in his favor, he's not worried. Also, because he "owns" the police, Zimmerman doesn't care if they catch him in the act (or beat him to the target).

3) Without knowing 100% if Martin himself is armed (or working solo), lone vigilante Zimmerman walks/runs within audio range (20-50 feet?) of Martin and starts yelling racial slurs to get Martin to attack him. He yells the slurs with confidence, since the 911 operator will scrub any lines from Martin like, "Mister don't shoot!" or "I'm unarmed!"

4) Zimmerman has lied to 911 about being lost, he knows exactly where he is, and he knows when he confronts Martin, it will be in a place Martin has nowhere to run. Zimmerman also knows that even if there was an escape route, instead of running away, Martin will take the bait and attack him.

5) Before all this Zimmerman has drawn his gun and put in his pocket (or already has it there). He says some more things to get Martin to attack, and Martin charges him. Zimmerman has to very carefully time this. Shoot too soon (outside of 25 feet) and it looks like what it is, a planned hit. Wait too long and Martin will get the drop on him, beat the shit out of him and probably kill him in an adrenalin-filled rage, with or without taking his gun away.

6) Zimmerman gets lucky and shoots Martin once around 10 feet. Even though he has "diplomatic immunity" through owning the local police through family ties, he doesn't bother emptying his gun into the fallen Martin to end the slightest possiblilty that Martin might pull through and testify against him.

7) Zimmerman has no idea how many witnesses--if any--heard or saw the ruckus or possibly even filmed it. He doesn't care: the police are backing him up. He flops around in the grass and whacks his head a few times, drawing blood, but just enough that a backup alibi about a scuffle could go either way. He knows his father will lie for him, but the lies do have to be consistent.

-------------------------------

The Evil Zimmerman Theory will remain theory until the forensic evidence about shooting distances/angles/et al. is released.

my favorite version of the 'black person alibi' bit: http://youtu.be/G4XHMfedYtI

"'Officer, David Chappelle couldn't have done that; I saw him in his window masturbating from 2:35 to 2:37 I'm certain of it,... he was standing on a clock and holding a calendar AND holding today's paper.'"

... which itself references this old Chappelle bit: http://youtu.be/XYaijgkDBvA

>> ^hpqp:

@SDGundamX
You make a very fair point, and I agree with you to a certain degree. I agree that it is important to respect people, even when one does not respect certain among their beliefs.
When it comes to evidence, however, I disagree that there is no evidence against the beliefs of theists; all the evidence points to those beliefs being the creation of men from a specific timeperiod in history. In a court case you don't necessarily need a "smoking gun" to disprove someone's alibi, if their alibi is so obviously made up, or logically impossible.
As for the New Atheists themselves are the ones demanding special treatment. They are essentially saying that everyone must think the same way that they do, and those who don't are somehow inferior., I would refer you to my Santa Claus comparison above. Sure, Santa Claus may exist, but for a grown person to believe in Santa when all the evidence points to him being the production of the human imagination is - to put it bluntly - dumb... even idiotic.
You say A lot of people believe because they feel their faith improves their life--provides them with social and psychological comfort, gives them a sense of mission and hope, etc. This is exactly the delusion that the so-called "New Atheists" are trying to fight against (amongst other things) because not only is it an empty promise, but it also lends credence (and thus power) to the belief systems it is attached to (X-ity, Islam, etc.) which in turn do far more damage.
It's funny that you exclude Scientology because "Hubbard admitted to making it up". Historical evidence shows that John Smith was a conman and a charlatan, yet try and tell a mormon today that his/her faith is based on a conman's made up religion. The people who believe may or may not be charlatans (look at all the preachers/gurus who make huge profits... heck, check out the golden decked halls of the Vatican), but those who founded such beliefs most probably were, at least to a certain degree.
Finally, as to whether or not being rude is always counterproductive, it would seem that is a matter of divergent opinions (you can tell what mine are in the comments above).


See my answer to @BicycleRepairMan--what people accept as evidence in this matter and how much evidence is required for people to believe (or not believe) in a religion varies from person to person. Further complicating matters is that belief is not binary--it's a very wide continuum that includes people who aren't sure but practice the religion anyway.

My point about the New Atheists is that they feel the evidence against religion is sufficient. They are entitled to that opinion--but at the end of the day it is only an opinion. They should be free to express that opinion and tell people their reasons why they came to that conclusion. But they shouldn't pretend that their opinion is "fact" or belittle those who haven't come to the same conclusion.

About the "faith improving lives" bit--there is a fair bit of empirical evidence for the benefits of religious faith (in terms of both physical and psychological health: see here and here for more info) so I can't see how you can argue it is "delusional." Unless you meant that religion isn't the only way to obtain the same benefits, in which case I absolutely agree. But I find an interesting parallel in your thinking the New Atheists can tell a religious person that he/she is delusional if that religious person believes religion has a positive effect on their life with Christians who claim that atheists think they are happy but in reality suffering because they aren't one with Christ. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.

I'm glad I amused you with my reference to Scientology. But this is a very rare case where we have a "smoking gun" so to speak. While I agree with you that there is a some suspicious stuff going on with Mormonism (how some passages in the Book of Mormon are very similar to other books available at the time John Smith lived), I'm unaware of any hard evidence that John Smith actually admitted to making it all up. Again with Mormonism, we're back to people having to personally decide for themselves what to believe (and all the issues that entails).

Just one more thing... since you believe there are times that being rude or insulting can be productive, I'd like to know if you have any examples (personal examples are fine) of that being the case. I'm just curious what brought you to that conclusion.

@SDGundamX

You make a very fair point, and I agree with you to a certain degree. I agree that it is important to respect people, even when one does not respect certain among their beliefs.

When it comes to evidence, however, I disagree that there is no evidence against the beliefs of theists; all the evidence points to those beliefs being the creation of men from a specific timeperiod in history. In a court case you don't necessarily need a "smoking gun" to disprove someone's alibi, if their alibi is so obviously made up, or logically impossible.

As for the New Atheists themselves are the ones demanding special treatment. They are essentially saying that everyone must think the same way that they do, and those who don't are somehow inferior., I would refer you to my Santa Claus comparison above. Sure, Santa Claus may exist, but for a grown person to believe in Santa when all the evidence points to him being the production of the human imagination is - to put it bluntly - dumb... even idiotic.

You say A lot of people believe because they feel their faith improves their life--provides them with social and psychological comfort, gives them a sense of mission and hope, etc. This is exactly the delusion that the so-called "New Atheists" are trying to fight against (amongst other things) because not only is it an empty promise, but it also lends credence (and thus power) to the belief systems it is attached to (X-ity, Islam, etc.) which in turn do far more damage.

It's funny that you exclude Scientology because "Hubbard admitted to making it up". Historical evidence shows that John Smith was a conman and a charlatan, yet try and tell a mormon today that his/her faith is based on a conman's made up religion. The people who believe may or may not be charlatans (look at all the preachers/gurus who make huge profits... heck, check out the golden decked halls of the Vatican), but those who founded such beliefs most probably were, at least to a certain degree.

Finally, as to whether or not being rude is always counterproductive, it would seem that is a matter of divergent opinions (you can tell what mine are in the comments above).

@SDGundamX

I don't think this can compare. First: no one got off with murder. If anything, Western Europe is extremely harsh on its law enforcement officers, which doesn't help them want to protect the community, especially when the latter seems to loathe them so much. The Duggan case was nothing but an alibi for the majority of these looters.

Second, any person who thinks that they are entitled to loot from the livelihood of their neighbours, or burn their homes, has a serious problem, especially if they find the "well-other-people-are-doing-it" excuse acceptable. I fully understand the concept of mob mentality, and it seems it is because our society is such a lenient and dismissive "parent" that these youths fall prey to it. Why do these spoiled brats think it's okay to let of steam in such a destructive manner? Because they know they can get away with it, and that people will bend logic and common sense over backwards in order to find excuses for them. The government and society does have some responsibility, only not necessarily what people are accusing it of. A loving parent will care for its children, and that includes punishing them when they do wrong, not going all "you poor baby" on them. Kids need to learn that civil rights cannot be separated from civil responsibilities.

You make an excellent point in this comment by comparing with Japan: what is it that they have that makes them pull together instead of riot and pillage? A sense of community, and respect for authority. I'm not for blind respect, mind you, and the Japanese have good reason to be distrustful of the government's treatment of the Tepco scandal (amongst other things), but that certainly didn't keep them from helping each other.

Good point, but stupidity and lack of education often go hand in hand, and some cultures are tailored around preying on functional societies. The point is, a proper risk evaluation wasn't done when considering immigration. Ideology above all reason. Tragic really.

Populist opponents of liberal immigration laws use foreign aid as an alibi, but even that is ruled by ideology and opportunism. Only fair trade works. (not the hippie brand - actual trade with proper wages being the rule)>> ^hpqp:

You're amalgamating two quite separate things: terrorism and crime. The latter has everything to do with lack of education (including basic civic behaviour sometimes), of money, and/or is a result of immigration with purely criminal intent (yes, that exists too). The former, however, needs only nationalistic or, in this case, religious ideology to be its fuel. Most (if not all) recent Islamist terrorists have come from middle-to-upper class families, have usually been well educated and had no "criminal gain" (i.e. $$) to be made from their actions.
>> ^Smugglarn:
You make the same mistake as the media in Sweden and Norway; labeling all immigrants and refugees as "foreigners". The problem with terrorism, crime, rape etc is fairly specific to different ethnic and religious groups of refugees: Somalis, Iraqis, Albanians etc. Not all of them, but they are dramatically over represented. I happen to know a an MP that is of Iraqi descent, but she is an atheist and I would guess from, if not upper class, then upper middle class. So that would be dominating factors, but knowing that - importing violent, uneducated fanatics?
The right wants cheap labour. The left wants votes to bring down the right. The middle and lower classes lose - including a lot of immigrants that have done nothing but being well mannered citizens of a secular democracy.
Oh, and do not think for a minute integrated immigrants feel sympathetic with the criminal element. Only left wing stooges do that - often in the media.
>> ^Yogi:
So now foreigners can't even be trusted in countries because they have bombs and they're there to blow up people? Even if it turns out to be a foreigner how the fuck do you two explain all the foreigners that day who DIDN'T blow anything up? The country is full of fucking morons and only a very select few of them post here, remember sifters there's tons of motherfuckers who actually think like this.
Also why does anything even genuine sentiment on Twitter sounds like you're being an asshole?
"I fear that many 100s could be dead. Poor poor poor guard that worked in the first floor. ,"

On an individual basis it'll watch the cop more. But overall it'll be watching whatever is in front of the car, whether that be the cop or the people he's pulling over. If they outfitted the cops with cameras on their uniforms it'd be more indicative of them being highly interested in the cops interactions at all times.

I think the dash cam was outfitted because as an expense versus return, it's cheaper to outfit the car with a cam to note the happenings of common traffic stops (because this is about the only useful thing the forward facing cams are going to reliably be watching) without having to have another officer in the car. So they get 2 cars, split up the pair and have double the presence.

If the cops opinion didn't matter, they could just use the dashcam footage in every case (when applicable) and the officer being in court would be a formality. The dashcam is only brought out when something goes very wrong, as you've noted. If it's impartial and truthful why not let it stand as evidence in all court cases? They do it with traffic cameras.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I can see why you would have that opinion. I myself disagree only because, in the past, a cop's opinion was the only one that mattered. Unless, in the few rare circumstances, a powerful individual was pulled over (Like a mayor or police chief.) Think on this--who is the camera around most often, the civilian or the cop? Who does it watch more?
(All of these incidents were on the news)
For example, Rodney King may not have been a dash cam, but the police were still caught. A cop nearby my residence pulled a drunk driver from her vehicle--through the window. He had all right to do so, because she tried to gun it and was behind the wheel of a dangerous weapon. But who gets suspended? In a booking jail in my home state, a paraplegic was dumped out of a wheelchair... Cop got a felony. Later, a man threw himself from a wheelchair with a cop trying to settle prevent either from getting harmed, and guess who gets suspended? (It was on tape and someone had to take the fall.) In a prison, four officers (Alibis) go into a cell when the power goes out (Dumbasses, backup power is a beautiful thing,) and beat a murderer to death.
The list goes on and on, and since most cameras do not affect the average joe, I tend to believe they are there for a reason beyond the cop's best interest. Remember, even if the cop is justified, "Cameras never lie."
Now, the Police Departments do benefit from dash cams, simply because they can limit liability.

>> ^Porksandwich:
I dunno I think the dash cam is there for non-biased record, it is as much for the cop as it is for the person he stopped. But I also think that they've let a lot of officers run solo because of the dash cam, since they don't need a second officer to file their report on any incident that might occur. As long as it happens mostly on camera and the audio is captured. You'll notice they have multiple units of single occupied vehicles show up to situations where their dash cam is unlikely to record anything useful....like responding to noise complaints and other such minor things...car can't record that without being positioned very deliberately.
The only downside to dash cams are that the footage can be tampered with or "lost" when it's convenient for the police. I haven't heard of any system where the footage is captured direct from car with no human hands/eyes being involved in it's cataloging and tamper resistant storage (nothing is foolproof, but it should at least be something deliberate to cause loss of records where it's not explained away as inefficiencies and mistakes).

I can see why you would have that opinion. I myself disagree only because, in the past, a cop's opinion was the only one that mattered. Unless, in the few rare circumstances, a powerful individual was pulled over (Like a mayor or police chief.) Think on this--who is the camera around most often, the civilian or the cop? Who does it watch more?

(All of these incidents were on the news)
For example, Rodney King may not have been a dash cam, but the police were still caught. A cop nearby my residence pulled a drunk driver from her vehicle--through the window. He had all right to do so, because she tried to gun it and was behind the wheel of a dangerous weapon. But who gets suspended? In a booking jail in my home state, a paraplegic was dumped out of a wheelchair... Cop got a felony and deserved it. Later, a man threw himself from a wheelchair while a cop was trying to prevent either from getting harmed, and guess who gets suspended? (It was on tape and someone had to take the fall because, even though you could see what happened, a quick glance suggested it was his fault. And people tend to have short attention spans.) In a prison, four officers (Alibis) go into a cell when the power goes out (Dumbasses, backup power is a beautiful thing,) and beat a murderer to death.

The list goes on and on, and since most cameras do not affect the average joe, I tend to believe they are there for a reason beyond the cop's best interest. Remember, even if the cop is justified, "Cameras never lie."

Now, the Police Departments do benefit from dash cams, simply because they can limit liability.


>> ^Porksandwich:
I dunno I think the dash cam is there for non-biased record, it is as much for the cop as it is for the person he stopped. But I also think that they've let a lot of officers run solo because of the dash cam, since they don't need a second officer to file their report on any incident that might occur. As long as it happens mostly on camera and the audio is captured. You'll notice they have multiple units of single occupied vehicles show up to situations where their dash cam is unlikely to record anything useful....like responding to noise complaints and other such minor things...car can't record that without being positioned very deliberately.
The only downside to dash cams are that the footage can be tampered with or "lost" when it's convenient for the police. I haven't heard of any system where the footage is captured direct from car with no human hands/eyes being involved in it's cataloging and tamper resistant storage (nothing is foolproof, but it should at least be something deliberate to cause loss of records where it's not explained away as inefficiencies and mistakes).

Thank you Seth McFkface, creator of the unfunny "Cleveland Show", a weekly insult to Blacks.

This mosque-with-alibi-attached is an affront to Americans murdered by islam. The dolts who shrug that off should at the very least recognize poor taste.

The imam behind it is a POS radical (big surprise) "New York is the capital of the world, and this location close to 9/11 is iconic." That's the vermin's quote.

The quran states it is acceptable to lie to and deceive non-believers.

muslims build mosques to memorialize their conquests.

islam is a gutter 'religion' founded by a pedophile/gigolo/warlord. The faithful muslim has three choices when meeting a non-believer: convert them, enslave them or kill them.

There are a few handfuls of "moderate" muslims. BFD. They are 'wise' cowards who don't speak out against the radicals, therefore they get what they deserve.

Despite what Barack Hussein Vacation says, muslims have never played a significant role in American history, just minor negative roles.

Religious freedom is a two-way street. Tolerating one religion which then demands all others live by sharia law or die is suicide.

I've got a bad boy and that's alright with me
His dirty laundry is nothing that I can't keep clean
And when he needs an alibi
He can use me all night

(Oooh) What's the fun in playing it safe?
(Oooh) I think I'd rather misbehave
Your way

I'm just a bad girl, that's why we get along
Won't make excuses for anything I'm doing wrong
I'll pull the trigger in a flash
Watch out honey, step back

(Oooh) What's the use in playing it safe?
(Oooh) Wouldn't you rather misbehave?
My way

Oh baby show me the money my evil friend
Let's go to Mexico, drink margaritas in sin
I'll light a candle for good luck
Now come on baby let's...

(Oooh) What's the fun in playing it safe?
(Oooh) I think I'd rather misbehave
Our way

We're simply mad
Simply mad

Tags for this video have been changed from 'donald, glover, stereotypes, community, alibi, camps, jews, asians' to 'donald, glover, stereotypes, community, alibi, camps, jews, asians, masterbearting' - edited by EndAll

Pulled over to the river to take a rest
Pulled out a pair of pliers and pulled the bullet out of my chest
Fear and loathing across the country listening to my 8 track
I Reached behind the seat and grabbed a Kool from the pack
Long distance from my girl and I'm talking on the cellular
She said that she was sorry and I said yeah the hell you were
Check my rear view mirror check the gold tooth display
Check out the odometer and I was on my way
Cause I'm a high plains drifter the best that you can get
A strapped shoplifter a pirate on cassette
Bust a Travis Bickle when I feel that I'm getting pushed
Don't step to me or you're gonna get mushed
I'm Doing 120 plowing over mail boxes
Radar detector to tell me where the cops is
Spend another night at the Motel 6
It's five dollars extra get the porno flicks
Concoct a black and tan in my brandy snifter
I'm a kleptomaniac K-Mart shoplifter
Cash flow getting low so I had to pull a job
I found a nice place to visit but a better place to rob
I left my car outside and the engine still revvin'
Time to get busy at 7-Eleven
Then I went inside to make my withdrawal
I saw what he had had but I had to take it all


Knucklehead deli tried to gyp me on the price
So I clocked him off the turban with the bag of ice
Cause I'm mellow like Jell-O cool like lemonade
I made my getaway and I thought that I had it made
I feel like Steve McQueen a former movie star
Look in my rearview mirror seen a police car
Ballantine quarts with the puzzle on the cap
I couldn't help but notice I was caught in a speed trap
Dirty Mary Crazy Larry on the run from Dirty Harry
Stash the cash in the dash but my gun I did carry
I'm seeing blue and red flashing deep in the night
I got my alibi straight and I pulled over to the right
Cop knocked on my window and said Boy where's the fire
you've got a mailbox on your bumper and a bald front tire
Outta the car longhair your goose is cooked
Read me my rights fingerprinted and booked
Makin' like a D.T. driving a Gran Fury
Wherever I hang my hat's my home and my past is kind of blurry
Every dog will have its day and mine will be in front of a jury
I'm the High Plains Drifter and I'm never in a hurry
Read me my rights as if I didn't know this
Threw me in the tank with the drunk called Otis
With his five o' clock shadow he smelled of 3-day old beer
My man turned to me and said why are you here?
I said I'm charming and dashing I'm rental car bashing
Phony paper passing at Nix Check Cashing
I went before the judge he sent me to the Brooklyn House of D.
He said you behave son or we'll throw away the key
Harry Houdini'd out the cuffs I kicked the screw in the knee
Took the bailiff's wallet and went straight to O.T.B.
I had a good feeling easy come easy go
I bet on one horse to win and another to show
And sure enough that knak came in
Brought my ticket to the window and collected my win
Broke into my new car with a wire coat hanger
Hot wired hot wheeled and Suzy is a headbanger