Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

From the police in Maryland.

Just more cops using excessive force and beating the hell out of a white kid. This beating of whites has got to stop. Dude was probably straight as well, thats what set the cops off IMO.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"We're conducting an ongoing investigation..."...code for "we're putting together a backstory with fake evidence and witness corroboration to get us off the hook."

Yep, cops are always out looking for reasons to beat a white kid half too death and now they are trying to cover their own asses.

This racist sh*t has got to stop.

The biggest message from this, I think, is that it is yet another illustration of the fact that police do lie. In our system, police testimony is as a practical matter considered more credible than defendant's testimony. It shouldn't be. The suckers do lie and there is no way their word should be assigned any more weight than anybody else's word is.

To me, if what the prosecution has is police saying somebody did something and the defendant saying he didn't, the defendant should be aquitted. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. And a policeman describing a situation isn't proving somebody guilty. It's a claim. That's it.

If it comes down to cop's word vs. defendant's word the defendant's word should prevail consistent with the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. But that's not how it is.

JohnStOnge wrote:The biggest message from this, I think, is that it is yet another illustration of the fact that police do lie. In our system, police testimony is as a practical matter considered more credible than defendant's testimony. It shouldn't be. The suckers do lie and there is no way their word should be assigned any more weight than anybody else's word is.

To me, if what the prosecution has is police saying somebody did something and the defendant saying he didn't, the defendant should be aquitted. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. And a policeman describing a situation isn't proving somebody guilty. It's a claim. That's it.

If it comes down to cop's word vs. defendant's word the defendant's word should prevail consistent with the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. But that's not how it is.

While I agree with your first paragraph, the bolded part is ludicrous. How would any guilty person ever be convicted if that were true?

This is an issue where I always find myself agreeing with JSO. Well said, man.

93henfan wrote:
While I agree with much of what you posted, the bolded part is ludicrous. How would any guilty person ever be convicted if that were true?

By having more evidence than just the word of the cop vs. the word of the defendant.

Skjellyfetti wrote:This is an issue where I always find myself agreeing with JSO. Well said, man.

So you think OJ was innocent? After all, he said he didn't do it.

JohnStOnge wrote:The biggest message from this, I think, is that it is yet another illustration of the fact that police do lie. In our system, police testimony is as a practical matter considered more credible than defendant's testimony. It shouldn't be. The suckers do lie and there is no way their word should be assigned any more weight than anybody else's word is.

To me, if what the prosecution has is police saying somebody did something and the defendant saying he didn't, the defendant should be aquitted. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. And a policeman describing a situation isn't proving somebody guilty. It's a claim. That's it.

If it comes down to cop's word vs. defendant's word the defendant's word should prevail consistent with the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. But that's not how it is.

Give the cops a break, what other job can you get with a high school education that provides a pension and bennies?
I'm no fan of cops in general, but individually they're just regular schmoes trying to make a living and in my younger, more energetic, days I met them in the business sense more often than I would have liked, but the fact is that I got breaks more often than I deserved.

93henfan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:This is an issue where I always find myself agreeing with JSO. Well said, man.

So you think OJ was innocent? After all, he said he didn't do it.

But there was a ton of evidence against him besides a cop saying he did it. (Enough to have found him guilty, imo).

And see my previous post:

Skjellyfetti wrote:

93henfan wrote:
While I agree with much of what you posted, the bolded part is ludicrous. How would any guilty person ever be convicted if that were true?

By having more evidence than just the word of the cop vs. the word of the defendant.

JSO was saying in the lack of any other evidence.. when it's just the cop's word against the defendant... the defendant should be given the benefit of the doubt instead of the cop.

This doesn't apply to murder cases and the like as those never would come to trial without more evidence. Alot of very minor crimes the only evidence is the word of the cops... I believe that's what JSO was referring to.

Cop threads bring JSO out like pictures of 12 year old pussy brings out the pervs. He just can't help it.

Everyday brings me new and varied little affirmations to my decision to leave law enforcement.

CID1990 wrote:Cop threads bring JSO out like pictures of 12 year old pussy brings out the pervs. He just can't help it.

Everyday brings me new and varied little affirmations to my decision to leave law enforcement.

I can understand that. Every profession has its bad apples and I am certain the police have their share. I admire the person that will do this for a living. The police I have known personally do it because they like it (in the since of a calling). They feel responsible to perform a duty that few of us would chose. Former brother in law is a local copy who just got back from Iraq training their police force.

Now, like other public officials and employees, when a bad one is discovered the heavy hand of the law should be even heavier due to the problems that bad cops cause good cops.

Like HD, I ran afoul of the law several times in my younger life. All of them my fault. And in all of the cases except one, I was given a break by a decent guy who could have easily come down hard on me instead. Being a cop is a tough job. The guys doing the beating in this video are just assholes. Every profession has them. But I would contend that they are the minority. You can see the one guy come up and kind of intervene to stop the beating there at the end. Kid just ran across the wrong cops that night. Those guys should be fired and charged with a crime. But that doesn't make all cops bad.

Guys, think of what I'm talking about. One of the central principles of our justice system is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty." Yet how many people are convicted based strictly on a cop's word? In that case you have the word of an agent of the State who made the accusation being considered as having proven someone guilty. Basically, you're saying that being accused is sufficient evidence to conclude guilt.

That's just not right. Police do lie. It is known that they lie at times. It is not right to just presume that a police officer is telling the truth in a system that's SUPPOSED to be based on "innocent until proven guilty." When you do that you're forcing the prisoner to prove that he or she is innocent instead of forcing the accuser (the police officer) to prove that the defendant is guilty.

You can see the one guy come up and kind of intervene to stop the beating there at the end.

You remind me of something I thought about. You say one guy was going to intervene. But what would've happened if there hadn't been a videotape? There were an awful lot of cops in that scene yet, as far as I can tell, the ones that lied in their report would've gotten away with it if there hadn't been a videotape. There were plenty of student onlookers too. But you know what would've happened without the videotape?

My bet is that the cops' word would have prevailed. And I haven't heard anything at all to make me think that ANY of those many cops in the scene were going to tell the truth and contradict what was in that police report.

Seriously. Think about it. There were an awful lot of cops in that scene who knew darned well that the kid didn't attack anybody. Do you have ANY reason to believe that means the truth would've come out without that videotape?

I sure don't. I think an awful lot of people have been programed to believe that cops are these noble heros who do noting but selfless defense of society.

No. They're not. They're a necessary evil. Society has to have its thugs to control the "illicit" thugs. So society has cops.

JohnStOnge wrote:

You can see the one guy come up and kind of intervene to stop the beating there at the end.

You remind me of something I thought about. You say one guy was going to intervene. But what would've happened if there hadn't been a videotape? There were an awful lot of cops in that scene yet, as far as I can tell, the ones that lied in their report would've gotten away with it if there hadn't been a videotape. There were plenty of student onlookers too. But you know what would've happened without the videotape?

My bet is that the cops' word would have prevailed. And I haven't heard anything at all to make me think that ANY of those many cops in the scene were going to tell the truth and contradict what was in that police report.

Seriously. Think about it. There were an awful lot of cops in that scene who knew darned well that the kid didn't attack anybody. Do you have ANY reason to believe that means the truth would've come out without that videotape?

I sure don't. I think an awful lot of people have been programed to believe that cops are these noble heros who do noting but selfless defense of society.

No. They're not. They're a necessary evil. Society has to have its thugs to control the "illicit" thugs. So society has cops.

Even if some cops lie, it's the judge who allows the cops word to prevail..

CID1990 wrote:Cop threads bring JSO out like pictures of 12 year old pussy brings out the pervs. He just can't help it.

Everyday brings me new and varied little affirmations to my decision to leave law enforcement.

Yeah, after I read the 1st post before I scrolled down I was thinking 10 to 1 JSO has multiple posts on this thread complaining about cops...sure enough...

JohnStOnge wrote:

You can see the one guy come up and kind of intervene to stop the beating there at the end.

You remind me of something I thought about. You say one guy was going to intervene. But what would've happened if there hadn't been a videotape? There were an awful lot of cops in that scene yet, as far as I can tell, the ones that lied in their report would've gotten away with it if there hadn't been a videotape. There were plenty of student onlookers too. But you know what would've happened without the videotape?

My bet is that the cops' word would have prevailed. And I haven't heard anything at all to make me think that ANY of those many cops in the scene were going to tell the truth and contradict what was in that police report.

Seriously. Think about it. There were an awful lot of cops in that scene who knew darned well that the kid didn't attack anybody. Do you have ANY reason to believe that means the truth would've come out without that videotape?

I sure don't. I think an awful lot of people have been programed to believe that cops are these noble heros who do noting but selfless defense of society.

No. They're not. They're a necessary evil. Society has to have its thugs to control the "illicit" thugs. So society has cops.

JSO, since you have your opinion of law enforcement and nothing anyone can say will ever convince you otherwise, here is my wish for you.

I hope that every police officer you ever encounter for the rest of your life is a 0.01 percenter. No sh!t. I hope every cop you ever meet reinforces your opinion. It won't happen, by virtue of the fact that they are 0.01 percenters, but a man can hope, right?

BTW- I cannot count the number of heavy handed cops I have seen fired for this kind of thing. It happened literally all the time. Even self-initiated stuff that was not brought up by a citizen complaint but by another cop.

One other thing....

I HAVE NEVER LIED UNDER OATH IN A COURT OF LAW OR ANYWHERE ELSE YOU COCKSVCKER.

93henfan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:This is an issue where I always find myself agreeing with JSO. Well said, man.

So you think OJ was innocent? After all, he said he didn't do it.

There are alot of guys in jail that must be innocent. They all said it wasn't them.

JohnStOnge wrote:Guys, think of what I'm talking about. One of the central principles of our justice system is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty." Yet how many people are convicted based strictly on a cop's word? In that case you have the word of an agent of the State who made the accusation being considered as having proven someone guilty. Basically, you're saying that being accused is sufficient evidence to conclude guilt.

That's just not right. Police do lie. It is known that they lie at times. It is not right to just presume that a police officer is telling the truth in a system that's SUPPOSED to be based on "innocent until proven guilty." When you do that you're forcing the prisoner to prove that he or she is innocent instead of forcing the accuser (the police officer) to prove that the defendant is guilty.

I'm no legal scholar but I've seen enough Nancy Grace, Law and Order and Perry Mason to know that hearsay and "my word against yours" is a flimsy, weak argument. Just saying. Then again, you think guys that fuck animals are normal.

Ibanez wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Guys, think of what I'm talking about. One of the central principles of our justice system is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty." Yet how many people are convicted based strictly on a cop's word? In that case you have the word of an agent of the State who made the accusation being considered as having proven someone guilty. Basically, you're saying that being accused is sufficient evidence to conclude guilt.

That's just not right. Police do lie. It is known that they lie at times. It is not right to just presume that a police officer is telling the truth in a system that's SUPPOSED to be based on "innocent until proven guilty." When you do that you're forcing the prisoner to prove that he or she is innocent instead of forcing the accuser (the police officer) to prove that the defendant is guilty.

I'm no legal scholar but I've seen enough Nancy Grace, Law and Order and Perry Mason to know that hearsay and "my word against yours" is a flimsy, weak argument. Just saying. Then again, you think guys that fuck animals are normal.

Say what?!?!

death dealer wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
I'm no legal scholar but I've seen enough Nancy Grace, Law and Order and Perry Mason to know that hearsay and "my word against yours" is a flimsy, weak argument. Just saying. Then again, you think guys that fuck animals are normal.

Say what?!?!

Yeah, he said beastiality was normal, on AGS.


The love between a Man and a feral pig is perfectly normal.

Ibanez wrote:

death dealer wrote: Say what?!?!

Yeah, he said beastiality was normal, on AGS.


The love between a Man and a feral pig is perfectly normal.

He said something like " it is ok if it is your dog, because you own it ".

I'm no legal scholar but I've seen enough Nancy Grace, Law and Order and Perry Mason to know that hearsay and "my word against yours" is a flimsy, weak argument. Just saying. Then again, you think guys that **** animals are normal.

No, I do not think being sexually attracted to other species is normal. The only time I've talked abut being sexually attracted to other species is in the context of talking about human homosexuality. In that context I've said that being attracted to a member of your own sex within your species is no more normal than being attracted to a member of the opposite sex of a different species. The point is that neither is normal.

As far as the "my word against yours" goes, what I"m getting at is that as a practical matter the cops' word prevails. In a "my word against yours" situation, the cop is more often than not presumed to be the one telling the truth. And that is contrary to the "innocent until proven guilty" concept.

Again, an agent of the State accuses you then you are put into the position of having to prove that the agent of the State is mistaken or lying rather than the agent of the State being required to prove that he or she is telling the truth and/or is accurate. I don't see how you can think that's consistent with the "innocent until proven guilty" atmosphere that is supposed to prevail in our justice system.

He said something like " it is ok if it is your dog, because you own it ".

I did not say it's "OK." I said that animals are property and should be considered as such. WHATEVER you do to your property should be your business. It may be cruel. It may be perverted. But it is not the business of the State. It's your property.