LOL cops

[trendon]

- no fear of dying/Goal is to die
- Thinks he's the only person left that can save the world
- Hates his mother/father
- Super intelligent


I'm starting to get a little nervous. You didn't wet the bed past the age of 12, and have a thing with starting fires, did you?

I don't hate my father and my stepmother replaced my birth mother anyway. And I have fears: fear of jail, fear of injury, fear of HURTING OTHER PEOPLE. Settle down, sir.

[nick]

Shel had a crush on a cop growing up

[nick]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTqb6dFBDwI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT9RGLxDwPY[/youtube]

best show evAr

[xLiQx]

Where this thread has gotten me the last 30 minutes.

[shel311]

Shel had a crush on a cop growing up

Her name was objectivity, weird name, I know.

[trendon]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mass-offic ... --mlb.html

I side with the police officer on this one. I would be happy to defend him.

[shel311]

A "Monday", that has to be one of the worst putdowns I've heard in a while.

Is that primarily something that is used towards black people? I've never heard of that term.

[Wasted Memory]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mass-offic ... --mlb.html

I side with the police officer on this one. I would be happy to defend him.

That may be the stupidest thing I've ever heard of...

Doesn't BigMike live up there in Massachusetts? Is "Monday" a common racial slur around there?

[cougnix]

I'll just leave this here.



PROTECT AND SERVE MOTHERFUCKERS!! PROTECT AND SERVE!

Okay, now let's use statistics correctly and show the map where cops did their job correctly.

[trendon]

I'll just leave this here.



PROTECT AND SERVE MOTHERFUCKERS!! PROTECT AND SERVE!

Okay, now let's use statistics correctly and show the map where cops did their job correctly.

#1 - You missed the point.

#2 -

[nick]

i know NOTHING about this so im sorry if its offensive.. but calling someone a "monday" since it references to mondays being 'the least liked day' is... RACIST!?!?!?!?!

WHAT?

[trendon]

Let me ask you guys this question. How many guilty people do you need to imprison to justify locking up one innocent man to justify the system? In other words, let's say today a man was wrongfully convicted; how many guilty men should have gone to jail where you think, "Oh, well, sucks, but the system works."

My number is, I don't know, ten thousand ... hundred thousand. Maybe infinite. I think if we imprison one innocent man - all over the country - a year, the system is broken and everyone needs to be purged. But clearly you guys are a bit more manageable*

So ... what's your number? Let me make it easier for you, no sarcasm. How many pedophiles need to go to jail for what they did to make it acceptable to imprison one innocent man?

* - I'll sarcastically add that you are more manageable because you've never done a stretch in jail. Changes things.

[trendon]

More direct.

Let's say Sandusky had an accomplice. But, after all the fact-finding, you find out that this accomplice wasn't one at all and wasn't even party to anything Sandusky was doing. But, you can still frame him as one and use evidence against him that will also convict Sandusky. Now, this is pretty far into Never Never Land of Possibilities, but it is possible and, as all hypothetical questions, a bit eyerolling.

That aside, do you convict the "accomplice" to get to Sandusky?

[shel311]

Here we go again with you drawing conclusions lol.

Who said any one is ok with innocent people going to jail, any amount?

[shel311]

More direct.

Let's say Sandusky had an accomplice. But, after all the fact-finding, you find out that this accomplice wasn't one at all and wasn't even party to anything Sandusky was doing. But, you can still frame him as one and use evidence against him that will also convict Sandusky. Now, this is pretty far into Never Never Land of Possibilities, but it is possible and, as all hypothetical questions, a bit eyerolling.

That aside, do you convict the "accomplice" to get to Sandusky?

Who is gonna say yes to this?

[trendon]

More direct.

Let's say Sandusky had an accomplice. But, after all the fact-finding, you find out that this accomplice wasn't one at all and wasn't even party to anything Sandusky was doing. But, you can still frame him as one and use evidence against him that will also convict Sandusky. Now, this is pretty far into Never Never Land of Possibilities, but it is possible and, as all hypothetical questions, a bit eyerolling.

That aside, do you convict the "accomplice" to get to Sandusky?

Who is gonna say yes to this?

Well, that restores my faith in you guys, then.

[trendon]

Here we go again with you drawing conclusions lol.

Who said any one is ok with innocent people going to jail, any amount?

I asked a question that is obviously loaded. It isn't a trick. You can answer how you please and clearly see what I am getting at. You are completely backwards in what you are accusing me of.

But, if you must know, I have run into quite a few people that have a "number." Of course, they are almost all cops and prosecutors, if not all; I forget. They believe that putting an innocent man in jail every so often is acceptable if xyz guilty people go to jail.

[dakshdar]

It isn't ever "acceptable" that an innocent person goes to jail, but in system as large as our law enforcement/criminal court system it is going to happen.

Everything is percentages and nothing is ever 100% perfect. Some very small percentage of people accused of a crime may not be found innocent when in fact they are. Some (much) larger percentage of people accused of a crime may be found innocent when in fact they are not. The most important question is whether those percentages are both as small as is feasibly possible. Considering the system is fully reliant on people, and people are prone to errors that cannot be anticipated or designed out of the system, you can never achieve a perfect system.

What you strive for is a system that contains the largest amount of review of information and data such that mistakes are few and far between. I think we have a system like that, but I don't have numbers for you right now (total convictions/sentences in a years vs number of erroneous convictions/sentences).

I think you agree that it is never acceptable, but do you really think that it isn't unavoidable?

[trendon]

I think you agree that it is never acceptable, but do you really think that it isn't unavoidable?

Yes.

And that is why my absolute true anger lies with the prosecutor. In all my anger against cops, I can't wait until the day I have to defend a police officer against them. They are sick in the head more than you think I am and I think police are ... combined times a hundred.

They will convict an innocent man - that they know is innocent - and refuse retrials or new evidence (even DNA) forcing groups like the Innocence Project to be backlogged. One prosecutor can do as much damage as a precinct full of corrupt cops and a jail full of criminals.

[dakshdar]

I think you agree that it is never acceptable, but do you really think that it isn't unavoidable?

Yes.

And that is why my absolute true anger lies with the prosecutor. In all my anger against cops, I can't wait until the day I have to defend a police officer against them. They are sick in the head more than you think I am and I think police are ... combined times a hundred.

They will convict an innocent man - that they know is innocent - and refuse retrials or new evidence (even DNA) forcing groups like the Innocence Project to be backlogged. One prosecutor can do as much damage as a precinct full of corrupt cops and a jail full of criminals.

What you're talking about is different, though.

Intentional conviction of someone who is innocent is not the same as someone who is innocent, but where all the evidence available indicates they're guilty, getting convicted.