Fake tits, cold beer and biker shootouts, get them at the Waco Twin Peaks

[Armybrat 40849]

We can agree to disagree.

Some folks say the same thing about politicians, lawyers, rappers.

[Brisketexan 105144]

We can agree to disagree.
Some folks say the same thing about politicians, lawyers, rappers.

Find me the good cop in Mesa PD. I’ll wait.

Or, I could save you the time. There aren’t any.

[Armybrat 40849]

You are saying all cops are scum, not just that place.

You have to know that is an absurd thing to say and should know better.

But carry on with your Broad brush of hatred.

[Poolflood 845]

38 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

You are saying all cops are scum, not just that place.

You have to know that is an absurd thing to say and should know better.

But carry on with your Broad brush of hatred.

No sense in talking with a hate filled jackass.  Sincerely hope this individual scum of human waste isn't a UT grad.

[tbone_ 14123]

Yea Army is correct. As a huge improvement, they need to beat people’s ass less, shoot people less, frame people less, and cover up for it less. A lot less on all of that actually.

 

But they aren’t all dicks.

 

I really just don’t understand the polarity of this argument. It should be ok to appreciate what the good ones do and demand that the shitty behavior is eradicated. But for some reason there is no in between. These days they have to either be 100% heroes or 100% assholes. But the world doesn’t work that way. Never has, never will.

 

 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Well, when the good ones remain silent or cover for the bad ones, the good ones aren’t doing much good, are they?

Why do we never hear of the good ones speaking out loudly? All we get is “It’s one bad apple” or “Not ALL cops” or, most frequently deafening silence.

When we’re dealing with agents of the government who enforce their authority and police citizens with violence and permission to kill, it’s just not good enough to claim “Not all cops”.

Until this supposed silent majority of cops start punishing the bad ones and loudly and publicly denounce them then their silence and deflections will continue to be seen as acceptance.

No, all cops may not be “scum” but until they stop covering for the scummy ones they’re sending the message that they tolerate the scum.

[immortal13 4059]

23 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Well, when the good ones remain silent or cover for the bad ones, the good ones aren’t doing much good, are they?

Why do we never hear of the good ones speaking out loudly? All we get is “It’s one bad apple” or “Not ALL cops” or, most frequently deafening silence.

When we’re dealing with agents of the government who enforce their authority and police citizens with violence and permission to kill, it’s just not good enough to claim “Not all cops”.

Until this supposed silent majority of cops start punishing the bad ones and loudly and publicly denounce them then their silence and deflections will continue to be seen as acceptance.

No, all cops may not be “scum” but until they stop covering for the scummy ones they’re sending the message that they tolerate the scum.

Repped for truth

[Steel Shank 9425]

He may be an idiot, but he's our idiot.

And he fits in.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Example 12,368 of why lots of us think “Yeah, it IS all cops”.

If you click through there are some more videos of these Heroes On Bikes instigating and escalating conflicts.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

On 12/14/2019 at 1:15 PM, Armybrat said:

That certainly is an idiotic statement. 
 

 

Why?

Are you disagreeing with the conclusion that cops cover for one another, either through affirmative act or by omission?  Or do you disagree with the conclusion that such covering renders them scum?

[El Diablo 4232]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

Why?

Are you disagreeing with the conclusion that cops cover for one another, either through affirmative act or by omission?  Or do you disagree with the conclusion that such covering renders them scum?

My personal opinion of the profession in general aside (hint, it's not favorable), it's a big leap to assume that with as many cops as there are working in a metro department that they even know each other, much less what sort of people their co-workers might actually be. I've got 500 "coworkers" in this building, all working for the same company. I know very few of them as a percentage of the whole and very few of those do I know even reasonably well and probably NONE really well. Taking your premise to a subject we're all familiar with it would be like assigning blame to the entire football team for the actions of one dumbass. Shit don't work that way in real life. Labels and fitting people into boxes is lazy.

[Armybrat 40849]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Why?

Are you disagreeing with the conclusion that cops cover for one another, either through affirmative act or by omission?  Or do you disagree with the conclusion that such covering renders them scum?

The Devil answered very well for me:

16 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

My personal opinion of the profession in general aside (hint, it's not favorable), it's a big leap to assume that with as many cops as there are working in a metro department that they even know each other, much less what sort of people their co-workers might actually be. I've got 500 "coworkers" in this building, all working for the same company. I know very few of them as a percentage of the whole and very few of those do I know even reasonably well and probably NONE really well. Taking your premise to a subject we're all familiar with it would be like assigning blame to the entire football team for the actions of one dumbass. Shit don't work that way in real life. Labels and fitting people into boxes is lazy.

 

[tbone_ 14123]

The devil is correct. That said, there really really needs to be better self policing.

[Armybrat 40849]

4 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

The devil is correct. That said, there really really needs to be better self policing.

No kidding, and better psychological screening of applicants.

[Brisketexan 105144]

33 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Taking your premise to a subject we're all familiar with it would be like assigning blame to the entire football team for the actions of one dumbass.

If the entire team covers for a criminal player -- whether or not he's their pal, it doesn't matter, they're loyal because he wears the same uniform -- then the entire team is the problem.  Not just the one player who sexually assaults women.  The whole team, because they are choosing support for the criminal because he wears the same uniform, and the brotherhood of the team and all that.

What percentage of cops would NOT cover for or otherwise help out a bad/dirty cop?  Everyone here knows it's an insignificant number.  The fact that we have to have this conversation over and over reminds me that any hope on this issue is pointless.  We will continue to support a system that repeatedly sides with wrongdoers over the public they are supposed to protect.

[Armybrat 40849]

Then you must have a problem with the Longhorns and Colt McCoy.

as Diablo stated, it is probably impossible for every cop in a good sized department to know all his/her fellow officers, much less have a clue what they are all doing.

we can say the same for the law profession.

Edited to add:

But it is interesting to see you think I support crooked cops because I called you out on your absurd blanket statement I quoted earlier. Do you really think that way?

Edited December 16, 2019 by Armybrat

[Brisketexan 105144]

4 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Then you must have a problem with the Longhorns and Colt McCoy.

as Diablo stated, it is probably impossible for every cop in a good sized department to know all his/her fellow officers, much less have a clue what they are all doing.

we can say the same for the law profession.

Of course they don't all know each other.  That's not the question, and it's entirely irrelevant.  What IS relevant is that 1) when they become aware of wrongdoing by a fellow brother in blue, and 2) they have any information about the matter/ability to take action with respect to the matter, 3) what do they do?

Officer Jones in another precinct who knows nothing about the case probably shouldn't have much of an opinion.  Officer Smith, who is in the same precinct as Bad Cop saw Bad Cop delete video footage, should speak the hell up. 

He won't.  That's the problem.  Honestly, that's THE problem.  I don't expect any profession not to have some shitheels in it -- high school coaches, lawyers, cops, sous chefs, whatever.  The test comes when other members of the profession become aware of misconduct, what do they do?  For example, the Texas Bar Journal publishes a lengthy list of attorneys who are disciplined for misconduct each month.  And most all of us would agree that we'd like to see even more folks on that list.  We have discussions in the office when we discovery misconduct by a third-party member of the bar, and we review the applicable rules to determine what should be reported to the Bar.  I'm sure not saying all of us are perfect in that regard, but there sure as hell isn't a "blue line" where attorneys don't speak ill of a brother attorney who commits misconduct.

If what we had was a handful of bad actors, and a system that was unified and actually went after bad cops instead of covering for and excusing them, we'd be having a different conversation.  But we aren't.  We can't.  Because the facts are what they are.

If a cop does something wrong to you and another cop witnesses it, presume the other cop is going to back the bad actor, not you.  Bank on it.

[Samson's Wig 3192]

1 hour ago, El Diablo said:

 Labels and fitting people into boxes is lazy.

Seems like a growing segment of our society (I would argue it is now the mainstream) just isn't comfortable unless everyone is labeled and put into their box.  It's a damn shame we stopped teaching history in schools a couple of decades ago.  We've been down this road before and it doesn't end well.

[DigglerontheHoof 21200]

On 12/14/2019 at 5:21 PM, Poolflood said:

No sense in talking with a hate filled jackass.  Sincerely hope this individual scum of human waste isn't a UT grad.

There are two kinds of cops.  Those who are corrupt and/or incompetent and those who cover for them.

Without the later there couldn’t be the former.

So, all cops are scum.

[El Diablo 4232]

52 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Of course they don't all know each other.  That's not the question, and it's entirely irrelevant.  What IS relevant is that 1) when they become aware of wrongdoing by a fellow brother in blue, and 2) they have any information about the matter/ability to take action with respect to the matter, 3) what do they do?

Officer Jones in another precinct who knows nothing about the case probably shouldn't have much of an opinion.  Officer Smith, who is in the same precinct as Bad Cop saw Bad Cop delete video footage, should speak the hell up. 

He won't.  That's the problem.  Honestly, that's THE problem.  I don't expect any profession not to have some shitheels in it -- high school coaches, lawyers, cops, sous chefs, whatever.  The test comes when other members of the profession become aware of misconduct, what do they do?  For example, the Texas Bar Journal publishes a lengthy list of attorneys who are disciplined for misconduct each month.  And most all of us would agree that we'd like to see even more folks on that list.  We have discussions in the office when we discovery misconduct by a third-party member of the bar, and we review the applicable rules to determine what should be reported to the Bar.  I'm sure not saying all of us are perfect in that regard, but there sure as hell isn't a "blue line" where attorneys don't speak ill of a brother attorney who commits misconduct.

If what we had was a handful of bad actors, and a system that was unified and actually went after bad cops instead of covering for and excusing them, we'd be having a different conversation.  But we aren't.  We can't.  Because the facts are what they are.

If a cop does something wrong to you and another cop witnesses it, presume the other cop is going to back the bad actor, not you.  Bank on it.

How many shitty lawyers have you personally witnessed?

[Ghost of LL 15531]

On 12/14/2019 at 2:40 PM, Armybrat said:

We can agree to disagree.

Some folks say the same thing about politicians, lawyers, rappers.

 

1 hour ago, Armybrat said:

Then you must have a problem with the Longhorns and Colt McCoy.

as Diablo stated, it is probably impossible for every cop in a good sized department to know all his/her fellow officers, much less have a clue what they are all doing.

we can say the same for the law profession.

Edited to add:

But it is interesting to see you think I support crooked cops because I called you out on your absurd blanket statement I quoted earlier. Do you really think that way?

Well, you've not drawn this (false) equivalency twice now, and I think it's really very instructive.

If you want to look at the website of the State Bar of Texas, you can find easily how to file a grievance against a lawyer.  But in my experience, most substantive grievances aren't filed by members of the public--they're filed by other lawyers.  That's in part because we have an ethical duty to report unethical behavior on the part of other members of the bar.  Do cops have such a duty?  And if they do, do they ever observe it?  If I were to look through all of the complaints filed by cops, how many would be filed by other cops?

The State Bar's website also shows you if a lawyer has been disciplined.  It's all very transparent.  Is there any similar resource that will show you if a cop has been disciplined?  Of course not.

Lawyers generally understand that one rotten apple spoils the bushel.  So we are pretty diligent about removing the rotten apples.  

So tell me again how that compares with cops.

[El Diablo 4232]

I'd suspect that attorneys are no different than other people and do not want to rock the boat unless/until the behavior of another is directly impacting their personal pursuits.

[Brisketexan 105144]

4 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

How many shitty lawyers have you personally witnessed?

Shitty?  A fair number.

Lawyers who abused the court's generous leniency?  A smaller number, but definitely some.

Lawyers who committed an ethical violation that required reporting to the Bar?  None....although I have vetted a couple of situations with third party counsel to determine if what I observed rose to the level of triggering my duty to report.  Those are serious conversations, and I initiate them because I am very aware of my duty, and do not want to fail to report something that I am obligated to report.

I know folks love to make fun of lawyers, but as GOLL noted above, we have a pretty damned transparent process that is largely the process of reporting from people inside the profession.  It's not perfect, humans are involved, all of that stuff.  But what we DON'T do is cover up another lawyer's crimes.  If I found out that another lawyer was destroying evidence, or running off with client money, I wouldn't try to cover for him because "we're brothers in the same profession," that's for damned sure.

[Brisketexan 105144]

Just now, El Diablo said:

I'd suspect that attorneys are no different than other people and do not want to rock the boat unless/until the behavior of another is directly impacting their personal pursuits.

Actually, that's kind of the opposite of true.  We are going to be MORE hesitant to report an opposing lawyer in a case, because that would have the appearance of gamesmanship, given our adversarial system.  But nonetheless, if the violation is of a nature that it triggers our duty to report, we have a duty.  So we (at least the peers I know) report it.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

7 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

How many shitty lawyers have you personally witnessed?

There's a difference between shitty and unlawful/unethical.

I've seen plenty of shitty lawyers.

I can't think of any whose conduct that I've seen was unlawful or unethical.

I am aware of lawyers whose conduct was unlawful or unethical from reading the Texas Bar Journal.  Those proceedings are published for everyone to read.

Do cops do anything similar?

[Armybrat 40849]

“False equivalency”

Precisely what I knew a lawyer would say.

Sorry, but y’all are tone deaf and don’t want a real discussion.

Over & out.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

4 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I'd suspect that attorneys are no different than other people and do not want to rock the boat unless/until the behavior of another is directly impacting their personal pursuits.

Yeah--ours is a profession notable for its lack of boat-rockers.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

2 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

“False equivalency”

Precisely what I knew a lawyer would say.

Sorry, but y’all are tone deaf and don’t want a real discussion.

Over & out.

Oh, I'm sorry--is it a legitimate equivalency?  Then please state the facts that would demonstrate it to be such.

[Brisketexan 105144]

Just now, Armybrat said:

“False equivalency”

Precisely what I knew a lawyer would say.

Sorry, but y’all are tone deaf and don’t want a real discussion.

Over & out.

Please -- DO cite for us the examples of lawyer A violating the ethical rules such as would trigger the legal duty to report, and lawyer B not just failing to report it, but assisting lawyer A in covering up the violation?  Because that would be the apt analogy.  You've made the comparison.  So please, cite the example.  I've given you (and this board has given you) LOADS of examples of cops covering for their own.  A couple of similar examples of lawyers covering for a crooked lawyer out of a similar "we back our brothers" approach would be very instructive.

[El Diablo 4232]

31 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yeah--ours is a profession notable for its lack of boat-rockers.

Most notably by those trying to differentiate themselves and make a dollar, no? I have no way to know but would it be safe to at least suggest that when lawyers do report one another it's frequently due to a situation where they found themselves in opposition on the job? I don't know that there's a comparable situation amongst LEOs.

[Armybrat 40849]

44 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Please -- DO cite for us the examples of lawyer A violating the ethical rules such as would trigger the legal duty to report, and lawyer B not just failing to report it, but assisting lawyer A in covering up the violation?  Because that would be the apt analogy.  You've made the comparison.  So please, cite the example.  I've given you (and this board has given you) LOADS of examples of cops covering for their own.  A couple of similar examples of lawyers covering for a crooked lawyer out of a similar "we back our brothers" approach would be very instructive.

 

 

On 12/13/2019 at 8:56 PM, Brisketexan said:

No, they’re not. They either do what he did, or they cover for him. Back the blue!

See the original subject of this thread.

Presume there are no good cops. It’s the safe assumption.

Until you back off that last statement and the first one in your post #103, I have no interest in your demands. 
But we can now assume there was no wrongdoing by the prosecuting lawyers involved in the Wilco Morton case?

Edited December 16, 2019 by Armybrat

['stache 21816]

46 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

“False equivalency”

Precisely what I knew a lawyer would say.

Sorry, but y’all are tone deaf and don’t want a real discussion.

Over & out.

You received discussion in at least two direct posts discussing the counter to your bad equivalence. Seems they want a real discussion.

[tbone_ 14123]

The sworn ethical duty for lawyers to report bad behavior is something that I’d love to see integrated into cop culture. Easy to write, probably not so easy to accomplish.

['stache 21816]

If most cops were "good" cops, we would be several years into a complete overhaul in how police use force and in how they fulfill their duties to "protect and serve" the community. The FOP would also be disbanded for lack of membership, or would also be in the midst of a complete overhaul. That hasn't happened, the opposite actually. So I'm fine with the conclusion that most cops are not "good" cops.

[Dennis Taylor 18828]

50 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Please -- DO cite for us the examples of lawyer A violating the ethical rules such as would trigger the legal duty to report, and lawyer B not just failing to report it, but assisting lawyer A in covering up the violation?  Because that would be the apt analogy.  You've made the comparison.  So please, cite the example.  I've given you (and this board has given you) LOADS of examples of cops covering for their own.  A couple of similar examples of lawyers covering for a crooked lawyer out of a similar "we back our brothers" approach would be very instructive.

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Dennis Taylor

[Armybrat 40849]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

You received discussion in at least two direct posts discussing the counter to your bad equivalence. Seems they want a real discussion.

No, they refuse to believe their own culture is flawed. If the Bar was as diligent as they claim, there would be very few, if any, scammers in their profession. Not to mention all the ones they put in political office.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

14 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Most notably by those trying to differentiate themselves and make a dollar, no? I have no way to know but would it be safe to at least suggest that when lawyers do report one another it's frequently due to a situation where they found themselves in opposition on the job? I don't know that there's a comparable situation amongst LEOs.

It would not be safe to suggest.

Most of the malfeasance for which lawyers are disciplined is not malfeasance directed toward an opposing party.  It's malfeasance directed toward the client (e.g., stealing the client's money).  In such instances, the only people who know about it are 1) the client and 2) other lawyers in the bad lawyer's firm or otherwise associated with the bad lawyer.  And very often, the client doesn't have the facts or sophistication to know that s/he has been done wrong.  So the only people who could turn in the bad lawyer are other lawyers who are on the same side.

And judging from publicly available documents, they often do.

5 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

 

 

Until you back off that last statement and the first one in your post #103, I have no interest in your demands. 
But we can now assume there was no wrongdoing by the prosecuting lawyers involved in the Wilco Morton case?

On the contrary.  There was wrongdoing.  And the DA was disbarred.

Sooooooo. . . .

1 minute ago, Dennis Taylor said:

What law or canon of ethics did any of the lawyers in this photo violate?

From where I'm sitting, they ran a damned effective defense.

['stache 21816]

2 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

No, they refuse to believe their own culture is flawed. If the Bar was as diligent as they claim, there would be very few, if any, scammers in their profession. Not to mention all the ones they put in political office.

So you disagree with them. But you accused them of not being interested in a "real" discussion. This is your response. But it's all a "real" discussion.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

2 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

No, they refuse to believe their own culture is flawed. If the Bar was as diligent as they claim, there would be very few, if any, scammers in their profession. Not to mention all the ones they put in political office.

So who are the scammers?  What are their scams?  Tell me, because they need to be out of the profession.

[Armybrat 40849]

Should I post a picture of Congress?

[Ghost of LL 15531]

7 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Should I post a picture of Congress?

Sure--and for each member, please identify the illegal conduct in which they've engaged, or the canon of ethics that they have violated.  If you want me to go to the State Bar of Texas and file a complaint against (for example) John Cornyn, what should I say in my complaint?

And it has to be more substantive than "John Cornyn sucks," though he undoubtedly does.

Look, man--you've defamed an entire profession.  A profession in which damned near half the members of this board belong.  Do you have facts to support your allegations?  Or just cute and meaningless little quips like "should I post a picture of Congress."

People are routinely killed by cops in this country, and their fellow cops cover up for them.  Instances of that happening have been recited chapter and verse ad nauseum on this board.

You say lawyers are the same.  All I'm asking is that you provide some factual support for your statement.

Until you do, your statement should be regarded as false.  And your equivalency between cops and lawyers should be regarded as a false one.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Ghost of LL

[Armybrat 40849]

Lol

ALL cops have been defamed here by multiple accusers, yet you have your panties in a wad when the tables get turned.

Then when someone calls that bullshit, you lawyers swarm like killer bees. 

 

[Ghost of LL 15531]

Just now, Armybrat said:

Lol

ALL cops have been defamed here by multiple accusers, yet you have your panties in a wad when the tables get turned.

Then when someone calls that bullshit, you lawyers swarm like killer bees. 

 

We have identified facts that support the conclusion of a pervasive culture among cops of protecting their own, even when their own has engaged in serious criminality.  It's not defamation if it's true.

You said lawyers are the same, yet you identify no facts to support that assertion.  It is defamation when it's false.  And you've done nothing to show the veracity of your statements.

So "lol" all you what, but you're showing your ass.

[Armybrat 40849]

Once again, you are word dancing around the core accusation here that ALL cops are bad because they ALL cover for crooked cops. No such thing has been proven.

Therefore you are showing your legal ass.

[Brisketexan 105144]

18 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

But we can now assume there was no wrongdoing by the prosecuting lawyers involved in the Wilco Morton case?

Ken Anderson lost his license.  And who led the charge to make sure that happened?.......

Members of the bar.  IIRC, hundreds of attorneys signed correspondence to the bar demanding that a disciplinary proceeding be opened up (hell, I can't even recall -- I may have even been one of the signatories -- that was a while ago).  Many attorneys volunteered time not just on Morton's exoneration case, but on Anderson's as well.

That's a PERFECT example, and I'm very glad you brought it up.  Not only did I not claim that there are no bad actors in any profession, I expressly acknowledged that fact -- EVERY profession has bad actors in it.  The test is what is DONE about those bad guys.  Ken Anderson -- absolutely a bad actor, no question.  When his bad action came to light.....how did the profession respond?  Well, we pretty much, with one voice, yelled for him to be drummed out of the profession, and to face criminal consequences as well  (he went to jail).

You keep pointing to our profession (which, again, for the jillionth time, is FAR from perfect, both with respect to bad actors and how effective we are at drumming them out -- I would very much like to see us do even better) as a COMPARISON to how the police behave, and all you've succeeded in doing is highlighting the CONTRAST.

And if law enforcement took a similar approach, I'd be thrilled.  Seriously, I don't expect anyone to be perfect.  It's a world full  of imperfect human beings.  I simply expect them to honor the system and enforce the law, as opposed to openly DEFY it.  Which is, I have concluded, obviously too much to ask.

[Armybrat 40849]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ken Anderson lost his license.  And who led the charge to make sure that happened?.......

Members of the bar.  IIRC, hundreds of attorneys signed correspondence to the bar demanding that a disciplinary proceeding be opened up (hell, I can't even recall -- I may have even been one of the signatories -- that was a while ago).  Many attorneys volunteered time not just on Morton's exoneration case, but on Anderson's as well.

That's a PERFECT example, and I'm very glad you brought it up.  Not only did I not claim that there are no bad actors in any profession, I expressly acknowledged that fact -- EVERY profession has bad actors in it.  The test is what is DONE about those bad guys.  Ken Anderson -- absolutely a bad actor, no question.  When his bad action came to light.....how did the profession respond?  Well, we pretty much, with one voice, yelled for him to be drummed out of the profession, and to face criminal consequences as well  (he went to jail).

You keep pointing to our profession (which, again, for the jillionth time, is FAR from perfect, both with respect to bad actors and how effective we are at drumming them out -- I would very much like to see us do even better) as a COMPARISON to how the police behave, and all you've succeeded in doing is highlighting the CONTRAST.

And if law enforcement took a similar approach, I'd be thrilled.  Seriously, I don't expect anyone to be perfect.  It's a world full  of imperfect human beings.  I simply expect them to honor the system and enforce the law, as opposed to openly DEFY it.  Which is, I have concluded, obviously too much to ask.

25 years late, correct?

I hope and expect law enforcement to clean up its act too..... where it is warranted. But you are on record here as saying they are all corrupt.

No, they are not.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Armybrat

[Ghost of LL 15531]

4 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Once again, you are word dancing around the core accusation here that ALL cops are bad because they ALL cover for crooked cops. No such thing has been proven.

Therefore you are showing your legal ass.

Show me a cop who has blown the whistle on a bad cop.  I'd be happy to exempt him/her from my blanket assertion.

The problem is that where you can show me such an example, the whistleblower doesn't last long as a cop.  On the rare occasion a cop complaints about a bad cop, s/he is harassed and drummed out of the profession.  While one bad apple spoils the bushel, one good apple doesn't detoxify a rotten bushel.

The legal profession has no similar dynamic.  It's the opposite, as the Michael Morton case demonstrates.

[Brisketexan 105144]

6 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

25 years late, correct?

I hope and expect law enforcement to clean up its act too..... where it is warranted. But you are on record here as saying they are all corrupt.

No, they are not.

A single day was "late" when it came to Morton and  him sitting in prison.  But the fact remains that the process began as soon as the information came to light.  So, yeah, when a bad actor does something and hides it -- attorney, cop, stockbroker -- you don't find out about it right away.  The question is what you do when it comes to light.

I am indeed on record saying that law enforcement is all corrupt.  Because they have a demonstrable and proven track record of just that.  Seriously, I'm not gonna google it all for you, but lying on a police report is a given -- see any number of cases talked about just on this board.

ALL I WANT IS FOR COPS TO TAKE THE SIDE OF THE PEOPLE OVER A BAD COP.  Again, it's clearly too much to ask.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Brisketexan

[Ghost of LL 15531]

For the record, there's only two of us here.  We're not "swarming like a bunch of killer bees."  It's more like we're descending on a corpse like a pair of turkey buzzards (which, as Brisket knows, is my spirit animal).

Edited December 16, 2019 by Ghost of LL

[El Diablo 4232]

My only point, which started this round of lawyer bashing, was that painting with a broad brush if flawed and lazy. The defensive responses seem to confirm that, in spite of a good portion of the population feeling that lawyers are slimy, perhaps even scum. <- same word that was used to describe all cops.

What I find more amusing about Rembrandt's take here is that if one were to suggest to him that all Mooslims were murderous cave dwellers he'd be offended. How one can hold the one opinion and not respect the other is truly baffling to me. It's the pot calling the kettle blacker.