30,000 drug convictions now shown to be attainved via criminalistic corruption

WTF? What kind of analogy is that? I said it was tragic.

What are you & STY looking for, anyway? Dismantle the system because bad people get hired, and head on back to good ol' vigilante justice?

Bad people get hired, and bad things happen. I don't think I've seen anyone claiming the system is perfect. But she got caught, and she will be punished.

The answer is not to dismantle the system, but to understand that it is basically against you. Then understand that it should be thrre for you. Show the ' system' that you know and challenge it when it threstens you. The law is for the people, they pay for it. The law is not for the police, the people pay for them too. The law is not for the government, the people pay for the government.
We need management, we need experts, we need the law to be upheld but it must be the peoples law. Not the law of the bankers, not the law of the inheritance wealthy, not the law of the freemasons.
The peoples law. Government of, by and for the people.
 
That's not a real answer, because you don't have one. You just like to bitch & call everyone else a coward.

What is the plan, STY? In STY's perfect world, how do we have security without corruption? How do we have justice without people who fail and willfully abuse the system?

How do we remove human nature from the process - ANY process?

Let's hear it. Let's hear the big solution for once.
i've thrown out my ideas. most of you have disregarded them as too much change or doing too much to limit the police ability to 'protect' you. even the three I posted in this thread alone, tell me what you've said about them. most people here think murder is not justifiable in ANY circumstance......at least when it concerns a cop, but y'all give mousy answers when I pose a hypothetical about a cop raping a woman. you talk shit about 'we would never condone that', but you never come right out and say you would acquit a person of murder if they killed a cop in self defense.

you morons place the onus of right and wrong on the wrong party, ALL. THE. TIME. as proof of that claim, if you were sitting on MY jury where I'm being tried for capital murder of a police officer and I claim self defense, what is your initial thought of my guilt or innocence? most all of you will automatically assume guilty, even before any evidence is presented.
 
The answer is not to dismantle the system, but to understand that it is basically against you. Then understand that it should be thrre for you. Show the ' system' that you know and challenge it when it threstens you. The law is for the people, they pay for it. The law is not for the police, the people pay for them too. The law is not for the government, the people pay for the government.
We need management, we need experts, we need the law to be upheld but it must be the peoples law. Not the law of the bankers, not the law of the inheritance wealthy, not the law of the freemasons.
The peoples law. Government of, by and for the people.
that's all well and good. now tell that to the brainwashed lemmings like zappa who believe that cops are more trustworthy than the average citizen because they are professionally trained experts that shoot innocent people and mistaken identity is an excusable act of attempted murder.
 
i've thrown out my ideas. most of you have disregarded them as too much change or doing too much to limit the police ability to 'protect' you. even the three I posted in this thread alone, tell me what you've said about them. most people here think murder is not justifiable in ANY circumstance......at least when it concerns a cop, but y'all give mousy answers when I pose a hypothetical about a cop raping a woman. you talk shit about 'we would never condone that', but you never come right out and say you would acquit a person of murder if they killed a cop in self defense.

you morons place the onus of right and wrong on the wrong party, ALL. THE. TIME. as proof of that claim, if you were sitting on MY jury where I'm being tried for capital murder of a police officer and I claim self defense, what is your initial thought of my guilt or innocence? most all of you will automatically assume guilty, even before any evidence is presented.

Stop using "you" in your replies to me, unless you have seen me make those arguments. I haven't.

I don't see a "solution" in your answer above. There isn't one. There isn't a way to remove human nature from the process - there will be mistakes, there will be willful malfeasance, there will be corruption. Whether it's a gov't solution, or one the "people" take back and try to run themselves. All we can do is keep trying to improve the process - more oversight, more prosecution of that malfeasance, more transparency. And if you compare today to 10 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago - that's exactly the direction we've gone in.

If I'm on a jury and someone killed a cop, that person is innocent until their guilt is proven - I don't see any difference in circumstances because one person is a cop. I think you assume a level of reverance and feeling of "they can do no wrong" where none exists when it comes to my feelings or that of most about the police & our system of justice. Our imperfect system of justice.
 
In fact, I would usually assume the cop is wrong, and be looking real hard at the "evidence"...unless STY was the defendant. He's expressed far too much bloodlust towards LE officials for me not to suspect murder. But normally...nope. I always assume cops are lying and covering up, especially for each other. You'd have to stone-cold prove to me otherwise.
 
Stop using "you" in your replies to me, unless you have seen me make those arguments. I haven't.
if you like, I can put a disclaimer in my sig that notates 'you' is a subjective term.

I don't see a "solution" in your answer above. There isn't one. There isn't a way to remove human nature from the process - there will be mistakes, there will be willful malfeasance, there will be corruption. Whether it's a gov't solution, or one the "people" take back and try to run themselves. All we can do is keep trying to improve the process - more oversight, more prosecution of that malfeasance, more transparency. And if you compare today to 10 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago - that's exactly the direction we've gone in.
do you (not subjective, i'm actually asking YOU this question) truly believe that creating exceptions and immunities to clear cops and prosecutors doing their 'jobs' is fixing, improving, and providing oversight? or is that the direction you're talking about?

If I'm on a jury and someone killed a cop, that person is innocent until their guilt is proven - I don't see any difference in circumstances because one person is a cop. I think you assume a level of reverance and feeling of "they can do no wrong" where none exists when it comes to my feelings or that of most about the police & our system of justice. Our imperfect system of justice.
ok, whose testimony on the stand provides greater weight for you? would you believe a cops testimony over that of a criminal defendant????
 
if you like, I can put a disclaimer in my sig that notates 'you' is a subjective term.

do you (not subjective, i'm actually asking YOU this question) truly believe that creating exceptions and immunities to clear cops and prosecutors doing their 'jobs' is fixing, improving, and providing oversight? or is that the direction you're talking about?

ok, whose testimony on the stand provides greater weight for you? would you believe a cops testimony over that of a criminal defendant????

The disclaimer won't be necessary. To your 2nd question, I don't think those things in particular are "improvements," but overall, we're in a much better place. If you don't believe me, read up on Capone's Chicago, or Serpico's NYC.

To the 2nd question, no. Neither has greater "weight." Witness credibilty has more to do with their consistency and the weight of the evidence than whatever their position might be, which is irrelevant to me. As Darla stated, I might even be more suspicious of the cop, depending on the circumstances; I likely wouldn't be chosen for that jury.
 
The disclaimer won't be necessary. To your 2nd question, I don't think those things in particular are "improvements," but overall, we're in a much better place. If you don't believe me, read up on Capone's Chicago, or Serpico's NYC.

To the 2nd question, no. Neither has greater "weight." Witness credibilty has more to do with their consistency and the weight of the evidence than whatever their position might be, which is irrelevant to me. As Darla stated, I might even be more suspicious of the cop, depending on the circumstances; I likely wouldn't be chosen for that jury.

I would never get picked for the jury...presuming I was honest during jury selection. Take that case in Brooklyn, the guy had 3 bullets in the back. He pulled a gun, he did this he did that. I am too cynical. I grew up knowing for a fact that NYC detectives carried around throw-away guns. Meaning they would plant them on dead guys if need be. Never mind how I knew, but I knew, and it was a fact. So if I told the truth, I am not going to get picked for the jury because a cop's bullshit holds exactly zero weight with me. If the accused is actually alive, meaning he survived the encounter with the cop (they usually prefer not to leave them alive), there is no way I am going to put him in jail on a cop's word. I don't care if there were 50 cops who were "witnesses" because I know they all lie for each other. It's sickening. This does not mean that no cop is ever murdered by a criminal. But I am not one who would say, oh a cop testified the guy must be guilty. That's laughable to me.
 
I would never get picked for the jury...presuming I was honest during jury selection. Take that case in Brooklyn, the guy had 3 bullets in the back. He pulled a gun, he did this he did that. I am too cynical. I grew up knowing for a fact that NYC detectives carried around throw-away guns. Meaning they would plant them on dead guys if need be. Never mind how I knew, but I knew, and it was a fact. So if I told the truth, I am not going to get picked for the jury because a cop's bullshit holds exactly zero weight with me. If the accused is actually alive, meaning he survived the encounter with the cop (they usually prefer not to leave them alive), there is no way I am going to put him in jail on a cop's word. I don't care if there were 50 cops who were "witnesses" because I know they all lie for each other. It's sickening. This does not mean that no cop is ever murdered by a criminal. But I am not one who would say, oh a cop testified the guy might be guilty. That's laughable to me.
and yet you were quite willing to believe the cops over the woman who was arrested at the airport with a couple of guns in her trunk, so were you just trolling me or are you mixed and confused?
 
and yet you were quite willing to believe the cops over the woman who was arrested at the airport with a couple of guns in her trunk, so were you just trolling me or are you mixed and confused?

I don't know, I don't recall the case. And while all of what I wrote is true, I do not believe that LE officials lives have no value as you seem to. For instance in that recent standoff with that nut, I strongly feel they have no duty to sacrifice their lives to take him alive. So you and I do not see eye to eye on much even given the fact that I am no friend to cops. In a way, I think, it further highlights your radicalism. Most people would call me a cop-hating hippy bitch, or whatever. USF and his ilk? They hate me. And yet...even with all of that, LE officials are human beings. Their lives have value. That's where you and I part ways.
 
that's all well and good. now tell that to the brainwashed lemmings like zappa who believe that cops are more trustworthy than the average citizen because they are professionally trained experts that shoot innocent people and mistaken identity is an excusable act of attempted murder.

Co-incidently I am watching NOW (the ads are on as I write) Clint Eastwood's 'Changeling'. If you haven't seen it, you must. Now its back on.
 
I don't know, I don't recall the case. And while all of what I wrote is true, I do not believe that LE officials lives have no value as you seem to. For instance in that recent standoff with that nut, I strongly feel they have no duty to sacrifice their lives to take him alive. So you and I do not see eye to eye on much even given the fact that I am no friend to cops. In a way, I think, it further highlights your radicalism. Most people would call me a cop-hating hippy bitch, or whatever. USF and his ilk? They hate me. And yet...even with all of that, LE officials are human beings. Their lives have value. That's where you and I part ways.
you continually mischaracterize my position on law enforcement and their lives. I have always maintained that their lives are no more valuable than mine or yours, even dorners. however, police are not judge, jury, and executioner which roles they took on when they had Dorner in that cabin as they ordered the cabin burnt to the ground with him in it. It's when law enforcement considers my life, or yours, less valuable than theirs is when I reduce their value to less than shit.
 
if you like, I can put a disclaimer in my sig that notates 'you' is a subjective term.

do you (not subjective, i'm actually asking YOU this question) truly believe that creating exceptions and immunities to clear cops and prosecutors doing their 'jobs' is fixing, improving, and providing oversight? or is that the direction you're talking about?

ok, whose testimony on the stand provides greater weight for you? would you believe a cops testimony over that of a criminal defendant????

OT, but hope this makes you feel better, STY.

Fired Pittsburgh police officer who coerced sex favors from women goes to jail

Adam Skweres pleads guilty before trial begins
UPDATED 1:43 PM EDT Mar 11, 2013

PITTSBURGH —A fired Pittsburgh police officer who was accused of trying to get sex acts from women in exchange for helping them with cases pleaded guilty to all counts on Monday instead of going to trial.

Adam Skweres, 35, of Lincoln Place, was taken away in handcuffs after pleading guilty in front of Allegheny County Judge David Cashman. He had been on house arrest with electronic monitoring for about a year while awaiting his day in court.

The charges included attempted rape, indecent assault, bribery, coercion and official oppression. Skweres' plea deal calls for a minimum of 3 1/2 years to a maximum of 8 years in state prison, and he must be a lifetime registrant on the Megan's Law sexual offenders list.

Skweres did not comment or ask the judge for leniency. When Cashman asked why he was pleading guilty, he replied, "Because I am, your honor." He could have faced a total sentence -- if it was consecutive -- of 86 1/2 to 173 years if he had been found guilty at trial.

"You can see that he was looking at very considerable time. He was looking at almost a life sentence when you take into consideration he was 35 years old. The risk of running this case to trial was just too great," defense attorney Phil DiLucente said.

Skweres was accused by five women, with some of the allegations dating back to 2008. None of the victims were in court Monday.

In the most recent case in February 2012, prosecutors say Skweres ordered a woman whose boyfriend had been in a bar fight to strip naked and perform sexual favors to get out of having to testify.

Skweres had maintained innocence ever since his arrest. At one point, defense attorney Jim Ecker said he thought the women had copied each other and he suggested the story would be different when Skweres got his day in court.

While Skweres was on home confinement, he joined Ecker and DiLucente at their downtown office so he could plead his innocence to local reporters. Judge Ed Borkowski called both lawyers into court and scolded them, saying Skweres was "a pawn" for their "voracious and insatiable appetite for media attention."

Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/local/alle...12561834/-/qk8kq1z/-/index.html#ixzz2NczuEP6I
 
In fact, I would usually assume the cop is wrong, and be looking real hard at the "evidence"...unless STY was the defendant. He's expressed far too much bloodlust towards LE officials for me not to suspect murder. But normally...nope. I always assume cops are lying and covering up, especially for each other. You'd have to stone-cold prove to me otherwise.

Amen.
 
OT, but hope this makes you feel better, STY.

Fired Pittsburgh police officer who coerced sex favors from women goes to jail

Adam Skweres pleads guilty before trial begins
and it marginally does, except for a couple of things.

Skweres' plea deal calls for a minimum of 3 1/2 years to a maximum of 8 years in state prison

any non cop would have not gotten such a sweet deal. any non cop would have been charged with aggravated use of a weapon for having the gun on them, but since guns are considered parts of a cop's tools and not weapons in most cases, this must have been overlooked :rolleyes:

also, home confinement while awaiting trial for 5 cases? any non cop would have been kept behind bars or had an extremely high bail.
 
and it marginally does, except for a couple of things.

Skweres' plea deal calls for a minimum of 3 1/2 years to a maximum of 8 years in state prison

any non cop would have not gotten such a sweet deal. any non cop would have been charged with aggravated use of a weapon for having the gun on them, but since guns are considered parts of a cop's tools and not weapons in most cases, this must have been overlooked :rolleyes:

also, home confinement while awaiting trial for 5 cases? any non cop would have been kept behind bars or had an extremely high bail.

We agree on this. The guy is a mental case and the bad part is, he was deemed unfit but got hired anyway, possibly because his father was a major at the county jail.

"Mr. Skweres, a five-year veteran, failed in his first attempt to join the city's police academy after a psychologist deemed him unfit for police work. He appealed to the civil service commission, which eventually earned him a spot in the next class. Mr. Skweres said that the city never told him why he did not pass the first test."
 
Yeah i never get why she's supposed to be so great. I thought she sucked in that movie.

She certainly had the lips for it. Smack her face against a glass window and she'd stay there. Or...would make a great loo plunger!
Believe it or not, although I have seen her several times in the past it was only last night, with the help of 'er indoors, that I was able to put the name to the face...(I use the term in its loosest possible sense)
 
Back
Top