It's not rare. But police who do their jobs and do them well are not rare either. The biggest issue is when you get things like this: police who, in their own direct interaction with the public would legitimately be regarded as good cops, who cover for the ones who commit misconduct because they've learned to see their loyalty to anyone else in the police uniform as more important than their duty to the public, their oath to the Constitution, or their personal ethics. That's how you get whole departments corrupted via one bad cop. And that does happen often. The individual cases of direct misconduct -- someone who shoots the wrong person, or who takes a bribe, or who uses their position to take advantage of female suspects -- are frequent in the sense of raw numbers, but a very small percentage of the total number of police who are out on the streets. But when an entire department of forty or fifty people know about the bad behavior of one officer and choose to conceal it, they become, not merely a force which contains no more good cops, but a force which *cannot* thereafter contain any more good cops -- because as soon as a new one joins the department they have to be either converted to also covering for the departmental misconduct or destroyed... otherwise they are a threat to everyone else in the unit. So you get more and more acts of misconduct to cover for the original one -- driving a member out who won't share their collective commitment to hiding the truth, or discrediting them, or even in some cases getting them killed. Without the critical weakness of loyalty to one's "brothers in blue" as a higher priority than ones loyalty to the duties and ethics of the job, our police misconduct ratio wouldn't be all that bad. Worse than it should be, yes, because even one is worse than it should be; but not unusual compared to the other nations whose police forces the world respects. But that mistaken loyalty leads "good cops" to cover up for bad ones and thereby become bad ones themselves.
imho, the lawyers representing the police are to blame for the situation. They put forth the silly proposition that it would be impossible to hear a loud scream from two blocks away. It is also frustrating that the expert did not simply replicate the same conditions.
OK, so the defence did a test and didn't think through the implications. Maybe I am alone in this but the poor guy got put away for a terrible crime he did not commit, as well as being shot and the neighbourhood feel aggrieved hearing the test. I hope the community members get over their upset in comparison to the second attempt in this sorry affair to try and for once get 'a good deed done that does go unpunished." Some understanding needed on both sides, one hopes. If you are stuck for ideas for 'discussion' on legal matters how about these 3 wishes. Compare contrast the following 3 scenarios from 2 big recent cases 1/ Who took advantage of "the people"/Taxpayer" most between Sarah Boone and her 9 attorneys and subsequent trial delays etc and the Adelson's 'conflict of interest attorney', Dan Rashbam, and the fall out from this tangled web weaved that got put on on the state/people/taxpayer. 2/ Who made the worst decision: Sarah Boone turning down her plea deal or Katie Magbanua turning down her plea deal in the Adelson/Dan Markel case? 3/ Who had the weakest/credibility stretching defence: Sarah Boone and the "threatening hand out of a suitcase" defence or Charlie Adelson and the "double dip/double extortion/literally laundered money" defence? (And which attorney kept the straightest face putting said cases to the judges and juries? ) Meanwhile I am off back to the beach to try and get a lawyer in a speedo to give me sound legal advice. All I have to do is sign a "Waver". :)
I appreciate you speaking about acts of kindness at the end of your videos. ❤ 😊
Police misconduct is NOT extremely rare by no means whatsoever. It happens ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the time.
Exactly my thoughts.
It's not rare. But police who do their jobs and do them well are not rare either. The biggest issue is when you get things like this: police who, in their own direct interaction with the public would legitimately be regarded as good cops, who cover for the ones who commit misconduct because they've learned to see their loyalty to anyone else in the police uniform as more important than their duty to the public, their oath to the Constitution, or their personal ethics.
That's how you get whole departments corrupted via one bad cop. And that does happen often. The individual cases of direct misconduct -- someone who shoots the wrong person, or who takes a bribe, or who uses their position to take advantage of female suspects -- are frequent in the sense of raw numbers, but a very small percentage of the total number of police who are out on the streets. But when an entire department of forty or fifty people know about the bad behavior of one officer and choose to conceal it, they become, not merely a force which contains no more good cops, but a force which *cannot* thereafter contain any more good cops -- because as soon as a new one joins the department they have to be either converted to also covering for the departmental misconduct or destroyed... otherwise they are a threat to everyone else in the unit. So you get more and more acts of misconduct to cover for the original one -- driving a member out who won't share their collective commitment to hiding the truth, or discrediting them, or even in some cases getting them killed.
Without the critical weakness of loyalty to one's "brothers in blue" as a higher priority than ones loyalty to the duties and ethics of the job, our police misconduct ratio wouldn't be all that bad. Worse than it should be, yes, because even one is worse than it should be; but not unusual compared to the other nations whose police forces the world respects. But that mistaken loyalty leads "good cops" to cover up for bad ones and thereby become bad ones themselves.
They charged him even though the lady said it wasn't him????!!!! And he did 19 years????? WHAT??!!!!
Yes. Read the opinion. It is a case study in outrageous behavior.
I LITERALLY cannot keep up with my TH-cam feed of daily new police misconduct cases.
They happen faster than I can learn of them…..
lol
Rest in peace, headphone users 😭🙏
Don't have nothing but an opinion .... it may have upset some people .... obvious the scream was heard two blocks away
Please follow the rest of this case! It's an absolutely heartbreaking story, but I want to know what you think of the conclusion when it's reached.
imho, the lawyers representing the police are to blame for the situation. They put forth the silly proposition that it would be impossible to hear a loud scream from two blocks away. It is also frustrating that the expert did not simply replicate the same conditions.
Were people more than two blocks away complaining? If so, it certainly debunks the defense testing.
The police knew he was innocent. They pinned it on him because we shot a good Samaritan was too much for their egos to take.
OK, so the defence did a test and didn't think through the implications. Maybe I am alone in this but the poor guy got put away for a terrible crime he did not commit, as well as being shot and the neighbourhood feel aggrieved hearing the test. I hope the community members get over their upset in comparison to the second attempt in this sorry affair to try and for once get 'a good deed done that does go unpunished." Some understanding needed on both sides, one hopes.
If you are stuck for ideas for 'discussion' on legal matters how about these 3 wishes.
Compare contrast the following 3 scenarios from 2 big recent cases
1/ Who took advantage of "the people"/Taxpayer" most between Sarah Boone and her 9 attorneys and subsequent trial delays etc and the Adelson's 'conflict of interest attorney', Dan Rashbam, and the fall out from this tangled web weaved that got put on on the state/people/taxpayer.
2/ Who made the worst decision: Sarah Boone turning down her plea deal or Katie Magbanua turning down her plea deal in the Adelson/Dan Markel case?
3/ Who had the weakest/credibility stretching defence: Sarah Boone and the "threatening hand out of a suitcase" defence or Charlie Adelson and the "double dip/double extortion/literally laundered money" defence? (And which attorney kept the straightest face putting said cases to the judges and juries? )
Meanwhile I am off back to the beach to try and get a lawyer in a speedo to give me sound legal advice. All I have to do is sign a "Waver". :)