The lights are out on 2 Officers, state of the nation.

[witness23]

Could've swore there were two more posts in this thread from Yolo.

 

[Turtle]

Ooohhh, there were more than two. He got on a kind of uncontrolled roll there. He's currently sitting in the corner, wearing a dunce cap,thinking about what he's done.

 

[muttly]

You steadfastly maintain there are no racist cops, the justice system is color blind, and that blacks get exactly what they deserve.
.

Muttly wrote: No one is disputing there are a few bad apples in the police force, or that they can screw up at times.


Muttly wrote: There may have been some instances of abuse,( like most depts who screw up sometimes)but the evidence doesn't support widespread,systematic discrimination or abuse.

Muttly wrote:
I didn't say they were all made up . In fact I said in some instances, the truth lies in the middle of both sides. I will say discrimination and racism can occur in police departments, but it would be a small fraction( just like other facets of society)and there is no evidence of a pervasive problem.


Muttly wrote:
It's possible if there were evidence of Officer Slager being a racist. So yes, it would be a possibility

 

[Turtle]

Slim and rare as it might be...

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Compliance is still the better choice. There are approximately 1.6 millions law enforcement officers in the United States. Using an example of 1 million interactions per day between police and civilians, almost all interactions go without a violent exchange. Violence is the exception, but it does happen on occasion. With the advent of cell phone cameras and security cameras omnipresent, more bad apples among police are being detected and removed.

Civics training is sorely needed on both sides with an emphasis on civility.

They make laws to restrict freedom of lawful citizens BECAUSE of the exception. Doesn't it seem strange that they use, "It only rarely happens," to cover up the exception to the rule for cops?

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Six officers out of 2100, who are accused of stealing from drug dealers. Isolated incident.

6 that were caught.

You seem to be the resident police apologist, citing "it's only a minority, so it's not that big a deal." Well, IMO, one is too many.

 

[skyraider]

A trunk full of cash , and drug money, just laying there,,makes a tempting take for the officer, and really, who is gonna rat on him,,,rainy day money for his retirement.............................naw, that would be wrong...

 

[muttly]

6 that were caught.

You seem to be the resident police apologist, citing "it's only a minority, so it's not that big a deal." Well, IMO, one is too many.

Where did you get that quote from? It wasn't mine. Please cite source please.

One is too many. I agree. Just keeping it in perspective. If you disagree with any post I made, feel free to refute it with facts. Thanks.

 

[Windsor]

Could've swore there were two more posts in this thread from Yolo.

He sent me a private message and told me to " go kill myself". He seems like a really nice guy. Hope I get the opportunity to meet him someday.

 

[Turtle]

He wanted me to do something very different to myself.

 

[cheri1122]

They're not the preferred target. Munipalities are mostly interested in having the fine paid. Cities like Ferguson weren't able to obtain a lot of the money from the tickets they wrote against mostly lower income minorities. ( the DOJ report even makes note of this) Cities would much rather prefer, (there goal is to receive paid fines in full in a timely matter)citizens who were more likely to pay them. Most likely that would be older white people who had probably accumulated some money, while residing in Ferguson for many years. Unfortunately those older white people didn't do much jaywalking , speeding , loitering, smoke dope, or other younger persons law breaking crimes.
There's so many high lawn grass violations that the city could write.
BTW, the issue isn't whether the city of Ferguson decided to be more aggressive in enforcing their laws to get more revenue, they clearly did.
The issue is the accusation that citizens were discriminated against because they were black. The evidence isn't strong that this occurred in Ferguson ,if you were take an objective view of it . There may have been some instances of abuse,( like most depts who screw up sometimes )but the evidence doesn't support widespread,systematic discrimination or abuse.

It's because the city would like the money that tickets are issued to poor people: they can't afford an attorney, and don't have friends in high places to get it tossed, as others do.
The city knows some won't be paid, but they have many ways to 'encourage' payment, like issuing arrest warrants. People who know a warrant will be issued will pay the fine before feeding their kids, or paying the rent, because going to jail only makes it worse. The city knows that, too.
Poor people, [of which a great many are black] are the prey, and too many 'officials' are the predators. That's an objective view of it.

 

[muttly]

It's because the city would like the money that tickets are issued to poor people: they can't afford an attorney, and don't have friends in high places to get it tossed, as others do.
The city knows some won't be paid, but they have many ways to 'encourage' payment, like issuing arrest warrants. People who know a warrant will be issued will pay the fine before feeding their kids, or paying the rent, because going to jail only makes it worse. The city knows that, too.
Poor people, [of which a great many are black] are the prey, and too many 'officials' are the predators. That's an objective view of it.

Corruption in city government isn't unique to just Ferguson. People who know someone who works for the city getting tickets 'fixed'. It happens. It probably happens in my city.
One way that they encouraged payment is they offered monthly installments to pay off the ticket. Eventually issuing warrants for nonpayment is nothing new to city governments either. The laws that were on the books in Ferguson,were around for a long time. They were around in the 1990's when the demographics were greatly different too.
They were ultimately the prey, primarily because the city government needed more revenue and asked the PD to enforce more laws. They were ticket mostly because they happened to be black, (around 70% in Ferguson)not because they were black.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Where did you get that quote from? It wasn't mine. Please cite source please.

One is too many. I agree. Just keeping it in perspective. If you disagree with any post I made, feel free to refute it with facts. Thanks.

It's called a paraphrase, which mimics nearly everything you've said about the incident.

 

[muttly]

It's called a paraphrase, which mimics nearly everything you've said about the incident.

A paraphrase is a reworded statement with the same meaning. It isn't a quoted statement that you attribute to someone by prefacing a quoted statement with the word 'citing'. It's not even accurate of what I said.
What incident? The SanFrancisco incident? It's a story that has uncovered an incident with some officers stealing stuff from drug dealers. A serious discovery of bad officers, no doubt. BTW , the story didn't even identify the race of the drug dealers. Pursuant to the investigation of those officers, texts were discovered slandering blacks, Hispanics, and gays. About 14 have been involved. The investigation will examine if there is evidence of racism with the arrests that they made. Hopefully it won't be a political investigation, like the DOJ report. If evidence is uncovered, yes it is A BIG DEAL with those officers.
Just putting it in perspective with the over 2,000 on the force. There can be bad officers in a police dept and should be eradicated from the force.
They are referred to as bad apples, and the real bad ones are referred to as crispy critters.

 

[Turtle]

He's paraphrasing what you seem to be saying, and enclosing the salient part in quotes to, ironically, clarify the meaning. He's not quoting you directly. Quotes are used in many ways other than direct quotes, to set off direct speech, a quotation, or a phrase.

 

[muttly]

He's paraphrasing what you seem to be saying, and enclosing the salient part in quotes to, ironically, clarify the meaning. He's not quoting you directly. Quotes are used in many ways other than direct quotes, to set off direct speech, a quotation, or a phrase.

You are trying real hard aren't you?

 

[Turtle]

Trying real hard to do what?

 

[muttly]

Trying real hard to do what?

The key word is CITE. When you cite someone and use quotation marks, you are quoting a passage from the author of the quote.
It is not something I said in any quote, nor is it a paraphrase of any quote that I said. My argument and statements have never been BECAUSE it is a minority, it is no big deal. It was within the context of how prevalent it was in the department.
The definition below :
cite
sīt/
verb
gerund or present participle: citing

1. 1.
   QUOTE (a PASSAGE,book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.
   
   Turtle wrote : He's paraphrasing what you seem to be saying, and enclosing the salient part in quotes to, ironically, clarify the meaning. He's not quoting you directly. Quotes are used in many ways other than direct quotes, to set off direct speech, a quotation, or a phrase.

You wouldn't know that he wasn't quoting me from his initial post.
He specified that he was talking about me, used the word CITING, and then provided a quote that I never said.

 

[Turtle]

The key word is CITE. When you cite someone and use quotation marks, you are quoting a passage from the author of the quote.

Most often, probably, but not necessarily. There are many ways to use quote marks along with the word "cite."

It is not something I said in any quote, nor is it a paraphrase of any quote that I said.

Everybody knows that.

My argument and statements have never been BECAUSE it is a minority, it is no big deal. It was within the context of how prevalent it was in the department.

Uhm, those mean the same thing. If it happens in a minority of police departments and by a minority of officers, then the context of how prevalent it is within a department is a minority.

The definition below :
cite
sīt/
verb
gerund or present participle: citing

1. 1.
   QUOTE (a PASSAGE,book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.

1. That's not the only definition of the word. That particular definition is actually mostly used in scholarly works within academia. Cite also means to refer to, illustrate, and recount, among other things. In this case, his opinion is that you seem to be the apologist, citing *the meaning set apart within the quotes," which is a common way to use quotes.
   
   

   Turtle wrote : He's paraphrasing what you seem to be saying, and enclosing the salient part in quotes to, ironically, clarify the meaning. He's not quoting you directly. Quotes are used in many ways other than direct quotes, to set off direct speech, a quotation, or a phrase.
   
   You wouldn't know that he wasn't quoting me from his initial post.

   
   I absolutely knew it wasn't a direct quote. He set up his meaning with "seem."
   
   

   He specified that he was about me, used the word CITING, and then provided a quote that I never said.

   
   Yeah, I know. As soon as I read it, saw how he worded it, I rolled my eyes because I knew you would respond exactly the way you did, by not understanding it. Nuanced subtlety isn't your strong suit with written communications. You have a tendency to focus on one word, or minutiae, and then want to pigeonhole everything within that meaning.
   
   In this case, you may think he was trying to quote you, but he wasn't. You can either accept that and move on, or pound sand.

 

[muttly]

[QUOTE="Turtle, post: 734688, member: 3008"

1. That's not the only definition of the word. That particular definition is actually mostly used in scholarly works within academia. Cite also means to refer to, illustrate, and recount, among other things. In this case, his opinion is that you seem to be the apologist, citing *the meaning set apart within the quotes," which is a common way to use quotes.
   
   
   
   I absolutely knew it wasn't a direct quote. He set up his meaning with "seem."

[/QUOTE]
Citing someone by recounting, illustrating, or referring to someone doesn't include a false quote with an false premise thrown in directly afterwards . It's embarrassing you don't see that.

There are other definitions of the word, except if someone is citing someone and then immediately follows it with a quote, they are quoting the person.

Yeah , of course you knew it wasn't a direct quote. I'm going to have to call bs on that one .
Setting up his erroneous quote about me using the word 'seem' earlier in the sentence doesn't negate the inaccurate statement attributed to me. If someone wants to state their opinion about what someone's view seems to be, it can be done without attributing a false quote towards someone.