Posted on 01/08/2013 12:25:48 PM PST by Altariel
It is the responsibility of the peace officers to expose and refuse to cover up for their brothers in blue.
What would happen if police officers across the country would contact police stations and express their disapproval that an “internal investigation” was used to cover up the actions of corrupt officers?
If there are so many good peace officers, there is no reason for them not to rise up and deal with the problem, now, BEFORE the non-government employees deal with the problem.
Else, what differentiates them from Muslims who say they do not support terrorists, but who knowingly do not report on terrorists within their mosques?
I can’t think of a *single* time on the pro-police website, PoliceOne, that LEOs en masse condemned this practice.
Lots of “we must not have all the information” and “if the department found it acceptable, it must be so” excuses.
Condemnation of sadism? Not so much.
I’d love to see that trend change, but if the peace officers are too terrified to expose the corrupt LEOs, that’s an indicator that the corrupt LEOs are greater and stronger than the peace officers.
I doubt it. With the internet, cell phones etc news stories like this are just being reported more widely and people have greater access to what used to be confined to local news.
“Better beware what bed you make by casting a wide net.”
Mixed metaphor. I would rather say to the cops that think the Blue Line is appropriate: Choose sides carefully, if the people start shooting back, you’re not going to make it.
You’re ignoring the absence of anecdotes.
A nationwide problem which has gone on for decades should have plenty of anecdotes. “This happened to us / a neighbor/ a friend/ a relative X years ago”....
Yet if this problem was truly as great of a problem so many years ago, where are all the anecdotes? If nothing has changed, then the presence of anecdotes would reflect no change.
Heaven forbid the police ever get called out to go check out an animal shelter or a pet store. It’s liable to be a bloody massacre with no survivors.....
LOL!
How about, "If you lie down with dogs, you may wake up dead!"
-PJ
Not all cops are bad. It’s just that 98% of them give the rest a bad name......
I agree this is becoming more and more prevalent.
Do you recall the NY shooter this past summer by the Empire State Building? Late August IIRC? I was in a waiting room with my sister about the time they reported that the believed some of the wounded bystanders were probably due to LEO rounds fired.
I had become so jaded (and still am) by all the cop shooting dog stories, I turned to my sister and said, “They must have thought they were smuggling puppies.”
“You know that sometime these police grab for their weapon alittle too damn fast.”
Yes but only when confronted by unarmed and defensless. Otherwise they use caution.
Yes. What anectotes? I don’t know of anyone who has had a dog shot by police. Ever. I am just saying just because you read more about a certain type of news story now doesn’t mean it now happens more often. That goes for any number of stories.
“Clearly, the LEOs (as opposed to the peace officers of old) are training for something.”
Dogs don’t shoot back.
“Nope. I believe cops do that to instill fear. It’s a PsyOps action. “
I think you may be right, or it may be the lower standards these days. It’s not working.
They appear on these threads sometimes; simple browsing of the warondogs keyword will turn up several that have impacted freepers. Salamander comes to mind as someone who has personally literally feared for the life of her dog(s?) from police.
(Salamander: I don’t recall if one or multiple dogs was involved in that instance. Don’t sic the disapproving doberman on me if I’m wrong, please!)
However, I can’t recall a single anecdote, even among Freepers, of an incident from more than 10 years ago.
The anecdotes which suggest a recent increase in the problem are certainly present.
Where are the anecdotes which establish this was a problem 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago?
These are not mutually exclusive.
Rather, they are two prongs on the same problem—both factors contribute.
“There were over 100K+ LEO’s that did not shoot a dog today.”
Only because they weren’t given the opportunity.
I did a Google search of stories going back to 1995, one year at a time, with the filters +police +dog +shot +fear for their +safety. I wanted to see stories that used the phrase "feared for their safety" as the excuse used by police who shot dogs.
What I found was that the first police-shoots-pet story was in 2001. this phrase began to be used in 2003, and increased in number as the years progressed, especially in 2007, 2010, and 2011.
Here is a link already encoded with the search terms to see when the excuse of fearing for the life of the officer became more prevalent.
-PJ
Have real cops search the house.
"Real cops?" I'm starting to wonder if they exist. What we have are a bunch of bullies who like to push people around and kill their dogs.
****** “All I know is that the officer would have to have shoot my wife too to keep her from beating his ass.” ******
I’m waiting for the News Story where the Cop gets offed by the Dog Owner ... surprised it hasn’t happened yet
TT
That is a Beautiful dog ... look at those eyes, what a sweetheart.
TT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.