Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Police discrimination, misconduct, Ferguson, MO, the Roman Legion, and now math???

Police discrimination, misconduct, Ferguson, MO, the Roman Legion, and now math??? (Page 7)
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2014, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You will always see bias where you want to OAW. That article is just more vitriolic fuel to a fire that the news media profits from immensely. It presents opinion as fact and fails to consider any outcome that does not involve the officer getting lynched.
And what exactly about STL County Prosecutor Bob McCullogh's track record has been misrepresented by either myself or the article?

Originally Posted by Snow=i
Did the police mishandle the situation from the get-go? Yes, But I have a problem with breaking out the pitchforks for the officer involved because:

A) Consider the mindset of the "victim" only minutes removed from robbing a convenient store. Yes, the police did not know it was him when they first approached him, but he had no way of knowing they were clueless. So you have this dude who just committed a felony getting stopped by police, and it's out of the realm of possibility for you that he violently resisted the police approaching him? Sorry boss, but I find it more likely that he did infact assault the officer and ended up dead for his trouble.
So this basically means that you are buying into the "alternative theory" ....

The alternative account offered by Wilson — Brown charged at him — requires us to believe that the unarmed and wounded man ran away, reconsidered and ran back toward the man pointing shooting a gun at him.
Ummm .... ok.

B) The real problem here was the way the police handled the public's response before the facts had come out. And I'm not surprised, because the police in general should not have the kind of power that we as a society are increasingly handing over to them. Every issue raised from allegations of racial bias to ineptitude to the police's role in our everyday lives can be avoided by removing the potential for those situations to arise in the first place.

IMO, the police should not have access to any (lethal) weapons the general public does not have access to. SWAT should be handled by national guard units completely separated from the police chain of command and should be trained, armed, and called in appropriately. The police are mired in too much politics to be trusted with weapons and tactics that the general public are not. Police are supposed to be the peace keepers ingrained as a part of the community, not soldiers. We've started to blur that line and this is what happens when that line gets blurred. Police should be able to call for SWAT, to use SWAT in situations where it's warranted, and to answer to the public for the decisions they make. SWAT soldiers, however, should not be the same guys walking the beat. It's a different mindset (peacekeeper vs soldier) and until we as a society wake up to this fact these types of events will happen with increasing frequency.
Agreed!

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2014, 08:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And what exactly about STL County Prosecutor Bob McCullogh's track record has been misrepresented by either myself or the article?
Your opinion is exactly that, OAW. I don't really give a hoot about Bob McCullough on whatever the hate-machine has you on about this time.

So this basically means that you are buying into the "alternative theory" ....
No, I am telling you what my take on the matter is. Put whatever label on it you want.


Ummm .... ok.
More hot air.


Agreed!
If there's anything from my post that I would hope would resonate, its this part. The former we can squabble about all day won't really make much difference. This, however, we can all point to and call shenanigans and I think in the long run is much more important to our mutual goals than anything else.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2014, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Your opinion is exactly that, OAW. I don't really give a hoot about Bob McCullough on whatever the hate-machine has you on about this time.
And that is precisely the attitude that allows the Bob McCullogh's of the world to cover for the police in even the most egregious circumstances and get away with it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i
No, I am telling you what my take on the matter is. Put whatever label on it you want.
Ok. How about this one for a label? "The Only Logical Conclusion".

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If there's anything from my post that I would hope would resonate, its this part. The former we can squabble about all day won't really make much difference. This, however, we can all point to and call shenanigans and I think in the long run is much more important to our mutual goals than anything else.
Indeed.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2014, 09:41 PM
 
I said this a trillion times in the Trayvon Martin thread, so I'll only say it once here.

Prosecutors don't charge people for only one reason: when they can't win.

Note, I made this claim before the DA was forced to have a trial in the Martin case, when they said they weren't charging Zimmerman. I offered it as the only plausible reason charges weren't pressed.

What happened in that case? They didn't win.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2014, 10:18 PM
 
^^^
That's certainly one way if looking at it. In this particular instance another way of looking at it is that a guy with several family members who are 5-0 ... a guy who wanted to be 5-0 himself but couldn't because of a tragic health issue ... a guy who in 23 years has NEVER prosecuted a SINGLE white cop for killing an unarmed black citizen despite SEVERAL opportunities to do so ... a guy who BLATANTLY LIED to the public about grand jury testimony the last time he was faced with one of these situations ... is simply not inclined to prosecute 5-0. There is a great deal of leeway and deference given to law enforcement by prosecutors. So it's already an uphill battle. But McCulloch's track record is indicative of a prosecutor who takes such deference to the extreme. Because if a cop can't even get ARRESTED, let alone convicted, in a situation like this where an unarmed black teenager is shot dead in broad daylight with his hands in the air ... as attested to by several eyewitnesses contemporaneously ... then let's just call a spade a spade. The police can kill any unarmed black male whenever the f*ck they feel like it and the legal system will protect them.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2014, 05:34 AM
 
I get the sense there's a lot of info being withheld by the DA, that's not unusual.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2014, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^
That's certainly one way if looking at it. In this particular instance another way of looking at it is that a guy with several family members who are 5-0 ... a guy who wanted to be 5-0 himself but couldn't because of a tragic health issue ... a guy who in 23 years has NEVER prosecuted a SINGLE white cop for killing an unarmed black citizen despite SEVERAL opportunities to do so ... a guy who BLATANTLY LIED to the public about grand jury testimony the last time he was faced with one of these situations ... is simply not inclined to prosecute 5-0. There is a great deal of leeway and deference given to law enforcement by prosecutors. So it's already an uphill battle. But McCulloch's track record is indicative of a prosecutor who takes such deference to the extreme. Because if a cop can't even get ARRESTED, let alone convicted, in a situation like this where an unarmed black teenager is shot dead in broad daylight with his hands in the air ... as attested to by several eyewitnesses contemporaneously ... then let's just call a spade a spade. The police can kill any unarmed black male whenever the f*ck they feel like it and the legal system will protect them.

OAW
1) You don't have to convince me to consider prosecutors to be scumbags as a default.

2) A good defense attorney would rip those witnesses apart.

3) Police can kill unarmed poor people with relative impunity.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2014, 06:53 PM
 
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2014, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
1) You don't have to convince me to consider prosecutors to be scumbags as a default.
Yeah, the stories that have been coming out now that DNA evidence is overturning convictions, really makes your stomach turn.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 01:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
How is that foot dragging? Or anything out of the ordinary?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 01:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yeah, the stories that have been coming out now that DNA evidence is overturning convictions, really makes your stomach turn.
It is better to let 100 criminals go free than to imprison one person wrongfully. Sadly many prosecutors feel that as long as they nail someone that's good enough.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It is better to let 100 criminals go free than to imprison one person wrongfully. Sadly many prosecutors feel that as long as they nail someone that's good enough.
Way too often they're judged by the one guilty guy they couldn't convict.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 09:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It is better to let 100 criminals go free than to imprison one person wrongfully. Sadly many prosecutors feel that as long as they nail someone that's good enough.
Well, I think a lot of it is ends justify the means – they're convinced they are right (either through the evidence or by police connections) therefore they see their job as securing the conviction through any means. Let alone the entire political aspect for those who are elected into the position.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 10:00 AM
 
So some guy (I don't understand his background/relationship to all this) apparently hit the breaking point last night and dumped his thoughts online. Ignore the Brown speculation – he highlights one troubling person who is barely related to this, but is symbolic of people's problems with the police: https://storify.com/laurahib/shaun-king
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I just thought about it – protests in the street will be a lot sparser and less likely in the middle of winter. My guess is that's the reason it got pushed.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I just thought about it – protests in the street will be a lot sparser and less likely in the middle of winter. My guess is that's the reason it got pushed.
You think?

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So some guy (I don't understand his background/relationship to all this) apparently hit the breaking point last night and dumped his thoughts online. Ignore the Brown speculation – he highlights one troubling person who is barely related to this, but is symbolic of people's problems with the police: https://storify.com/laurahib/shaun-king
I know I'm supposed to ignore the speculation, but six shots into a moving target at 30+ yards with a service pistol... isn't that like, sharpshooter shit?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 03:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
How is that foot dragging? Or anything out of the ordinary?
The delay is becoming necessary because of the manner in which STL County Prosecutor McCulloch is going about the grand jury process. I think this transcript illuminates just how the deck is being stacked in favor of Officer Wilson by McCulloch. Who ... I shall repeat for the record ... has on four previous occasions failed to indict a white police officer in the shooting death of an unarmed black male under extremely questionable circumstances:

HAYES: Today, big news in the investigation into the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown. Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, who shot Brown has shown his face, coming out of hiding for the first time since August according to a report.St. Louis Dispatch citing a single source reports that Officer Darren Wilson, quote, "Testified for almost four hours, Tuesday, in front of a St. Louis County Grand Jury investigating the August 9th shooting of Michael Brown."That comes against after a spokesman for the St. Louis County Prosecutor in-charge in the investigation, Bob McCulloch, told MSNBC that in the name of transparency McCulloch would be releasing the grand jury transcripts and audio if the grand jury did not indict Darren Wilson and if he could get permission.

Joining me now to discuss these developments, Lisa Bloom, Legal Analyst for AVVO.COM, also an NBC News Legal Analyst and author of "Suspicion Nation." All right, I have lots of questions Lisa about this process.

LISA BLOOM, LEGAL ANALYST, AVVO.COM: I got answers.

HAYES: OK. Good. That is perfect. So, let us start with this report that Darren Wilson testified before the grand jury. I should stress
again this is a single source in the St. Louis post dispatch. I have no reason not to believe it, but we have not independently confirmed it. If it is the case that he testified for four hours as the reports indicates, how common is that, that someone who is possibly going to be indicted testifies for that length of time before a grand jury?

BLOOM: It is exceedingly rare because the defendant does not have a right to testify in front of a grand jury. Most of the time the prosecutors do not want to call them and most of the times the defendants themselves do not want to come in and testify, because they give the state a preview of their testimony and they waive their fifth amendment right.

You know, Chris, what strikes me here is that every time this prosecutor has had a choice of two different options, he has chosen the one that leans towards the defense. He did not recuse himself. He did not file charges against Darren Wilson himself as he could have. And, now he is allowing Darren Wilson to testify in front of the grand jury.


HAYES: OK. Explain that distinction, because that to me is crucial. When you say he did not file charges against Darren Wilson, himself, as he could have --

BLOOM: Right.

HAYES: He is presenting this case before the grand jury. So, what do you mean by that?

BLOOM: Right. Because he had a choice. He could have filed charges himself and had are a preliminary hearing, which is extremely common. That takes normally about one day. You put a couple of police officers on to talk about their investigation. You only have to establish probable cause and now you are good and now you have to go ahead and prepare for trial. Instead he chose a grand jury which is a very long process. It is now extended to January, and it is completely secretive. And, if there is no indictment he can say, "Well, do not blame me. Blame the grand jurors."

HAYES: Yes. And, there is also this report, the St. Louis County Prosecutor`s Office is taking an unusual approach, instead of telling grand jury members what charges they believe Police Officer Darren Wilson should face. They are leaving it open ended for now and involving the grand jury as co-investigators. What does that mean?

BLOOM: Yes. That is another one. So, once again every choice they make leans toward the defense. Listen, prosecutors have to be concerned about bringing justice. They have kind of a dual role, but they are also normally an advocate for prosecution and an advocate for the victim. I do not see anyone in this grand jury room, who is an advocate for Mike Brown because every time they have a choice, they make a choice that helps the defense.

HAYES: So, normally -- let us say in a circumstance where we were not talking about a police officer shooting and killing someone, but police show up at the scene and a citizen shot and killed someone.

BLOOM: Right.

HAYES: That person would be booked and arrested and charged right away, right? There would not be some long grand jury process.

BLOOM: That is correct. And, very often it would be again by way of a preliminary hearing where the prosecutor examines all of the evidence, decides what the charges would be, and then goes forward with the preliminary hearing. And, if it is a grand jury, the prosecutor is an advocate.

They do not just throw everything out there and say, "Hey, citizens, you figure out if there is something here." Those citizens are not attorneys. They are not prosecutor. They are not criminal attorneys, so they do not know what the right charges are. There needs to be an advocate in there explaining to them what they are supposed to be doing.

HAYES: Lisa Bloom, NBC News Legal Analyst. Thank you so much.

BLOOM: Thank you.
Wednesday, September 17 - msnbc - All In With Chris Hayes | NBC News

So yes this is all very "out of the ordinary" when talking about prosecution in general. Unfortunately, it is all too typical when it comes to STL County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch and the individual on the hot seat is a cop.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 03:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I know I'm supposed to ignore the speculation, but six shots into a moving target at 30+ yards with a service pistol... isn't that like, sharpshooter shit?
I don't know, don't care until I hear more professional opinions on the matter.

Anyway, I should have highlighted that I was talking about Jeffrey Roorda.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 03:32 PM
 
No. I got that part. I just need more time to consider the argument.

The other stuff is easier to rifle off an opinion, and, well... it's there. I'm gonna end up reading it pretty much no matter what.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So some guy (I don't understand his background/relationship to all this) apparently hit the breaking point last night and dumped his thoughts online. Ignore the Brown speculation – he highlights one troubling person who is barely related to this, but is symbolic of people's problems with the police: https://storify.com/laurahib/shaun-king
If it turns out that Mr. King's assertion Mike Brown was killed 100 feet away from Wilson's SUV and not the 35 feet that the police have stated is true ... then I truly fear for the area if Wilson walks.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 03:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No. I got that part. I just need more time to consider the argument.

The other stuff is easier to rifle off an opinion, and, well... it's there. I'm gonna end up reading it pretty much no matter what.
I'm not trying to censor him, I'm merely trying demonstrate that my posting this link doesn't mean I endorse the opinion contained therein.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 04:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm not trying to censor him, I'm merely trying demonstrate that my posting this link doesn't mean I endorse the opinion contained therein.
Gotcha. Similarly, I want you to know I'm not trying to derail your post. The Roorda stuff is worthy of consideration. I'll work on it once I'm out of this appointment.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2014, 08:44 PM
 
First question from the Roodra piece.

One of King's tent poles is Roodra's anti-camera stance is sinister.

The problem is King hasn't really presented any evidence of that.

In fact, I would go so far as to say King doesn't think evidence is needed because as far as he's concerned merely having said stance is proof of malice.

Now, I doubt I'd agree with Roodra's arguments, but I'm not going to demonize him for having them. Not without hearing them in full. Not when I can come up with my own rational "devil's advocate" arguments from the position.

I speculate Roodra's concern is officers trying to do the right thing under very difficult conditions getting picked apart.

A certain moderation staff on a Mac help forum which shall remain unnamed has been notoriously resistant to the idea of transparency. Coverup? Conspiracy?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2014, 03:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You think?

OAW
The meaning of the retarded emoticon is lost on me. Too obvious? Too obscure?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2014, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The meaning of the retarded emoticon is lost on me. Too obvious? Too obscure?
Meaning that I wholeheartedly agree with you and I'm giving the move to delay the grand jury decision the "side eye".

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2014, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Now, I doubt I'd agree with Roodra's arguments, but I'm not going to demonize him for having them. Not without hearing them in full. Not when I can come up with my own rational "devil's advocate" arguments from the position.

I speculate Roodra's concern is officers trying to do the right thing under very difficult conditions getting picked apart.
“This gotcha discipline that we have with the dash board cameras is what we’d be afraid of,” Roorda said.
This is coming from a man caught falsifying police reports multiple times.

Edit: On top of everything else, isn't this guy's position troubling given his past? Why should the opinion of such a terrible police officer police officer matter?

Originally Posted by subego View Post
A certain moderation staff on a Mac help forum which shall remain unnamed has been notoriously resistant to the idea of transparency. Coverup? Conspiracy?
Dude. Difference between expectations on a private place to talk on the internet and a public department charged with public safety and laws, maybe?
(Also, people here don't much care for the lack of transparency)
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2014, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Meaning that I wholeheartedly agree with you and I'm giving the move to delay the grand jury decision with the "side eye".

OAW
IMO, that emoticon only has negative connotations. But whatever.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2014, 07:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
IMO, that emoticon only has negative connotations. But whatever.
Well it is "negative". But it wasn't directed toward you if that's what you were thinking. It was an expression of my displeasure towards the extension of the grand jury which you referenced.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2014, 06:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This is coming from a man caught falsifying police reports multiple times.

Edit: On top of everything else, isn't this guy's position troubling given his past? Why should the opinion of such a terrible police officer police officer matter?
I'm not going to base my opinion of Roorda as a cop purely on what King says. I'm going to check his source.

Said source refers to two incidents.

King describes this as "[a]fter @RoordaJ was first cited for falsifying police reports, he did again & again until he was finally fired & lost an appeal."

I don't know about you, but the mental addition I do with that sentence ends up with a number higher than two.

But hey, let's ignore King shooting his credibility all to shit. We have a source who's not him, and it says two falsifications. That's still a big deal, right?

Well, it's kinda more like one falsification, if what we're talking about actual police reports... the kind associated with criminal activity. The other was an Internal Affairs report claiming the Captain was trying to bully him out of paid sick leave. There are parts of this story which don't add up, but even if they did, this isn't exactly the kind of falsification which worries me. It was an office pissing match.

So we still have the one. There's little information on it. Roorda covered up for another officer. He wasn't fired for it, which I think puts a certain upper limit on the severity of the transgression. Likewise, the "character" of covering for someone else rather than oneself is different. How relevant that was is context dependent of course, and it's context we don't really have.

Is that enough to call Roorda a "terrible cop"? Maybe? I'm actually raising my pitch at the end when I say that.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Dude. Difference between expectations on a private place to talk on the internet and a public department charged with public safety and laws, maybe?
(Also, people here don't much care for the lack of transparency)
The analogy wasn't meant to be exact. Would you like me to rephrase it?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2014, 09:07 AM
 
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2014, 11:57 AM
 
You'd think someone who is supposed to teach media savvy would be a smidge less tone deaf.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2014, 12:07 PM
 
This guy strikes me as the PUA of media paramours.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2014, 10:53 PM
 
@Dakar

Any comment on my Roorda analysis?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 08:42 AM
 
Not really. I would have had more to say Friday as I was looking at source articles but I can't remember anything this week. I would say his actions post being fired seem to reinforce the idea a man who does not care for police accountability.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 09:19 AM
 
I don't have the proper name to insult this person, but someone apparently lit the memorial on fire in the middle of the night.



Classy guy, whoever he is.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 09:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Not really. I would have had more to say Friday as I was looking at source articles but I can't remember anything this week. I would say his actions post being fired seem to reinforce the idea a man who does not care for police accountability.
What actions? His policy positions?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 09:54 AM
 
Yes.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 10:14 AM
 
Which brings me back to my original question.

Is it possible to hold the positions he does without nefarious intent?

You appear to be saying "not possible".


Though I've mentioned before I don't agree with anti-camera stances, I don't see it as impossible to believe in police accountability while maintaining an anti-camera stance. Again, I can "devil's advocate" this position. My defense wouldn't be lack of accountability, it would be overaccountability.

This is the point I was trying to make with my moderator comment. Do you think the moderators here are against moderator accountability, or are against getting picked apart by people who hate them?

And make no mistake, people hate them.

Except for Andi. I don't think anyone hates Andi.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 10:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is it possible to hold the positions he does without nefarious intent?
This guy told a superior he'd lie to try and get paid leave. Is it possible? Sure. After seeing his character, is it likely? No.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 10:54 AM
 
If we're taking about the same story, this is the one which really doesn't add up.

The proof of Roorda's lie came from a tape of the incident.

Which Roorda made.

And willingly handed over as evidence... as in there was no compulsion to do so.


Doesn't that strike you as... odd?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 10:56 AM
 
I'd need a link to the article.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 10:58 AM
 
It's from your article. It's the appeals decision link King offers as evidence.

Stand by. I'll cut and paste.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 10:59 AM
 
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 11:03 AM
 
On May 21, 2001, Roorda filed an Allegation of Employee Misconduct Report (“Misconduct Report”), in which he stated that Chief Fredeking had verbally abused and attempted to intimidate him during the May 1, 2001 meeting, which began in the Chief's office around 11:15 a.m. that morning.   In particular, Roorda alleged that “Chief Fredeking yelled and cursed at me and slammed his fist on his desk in what appeared to be an attempt to intimidate me away from my legitimate request to use sick time.   The Chief's door was open at the time and the administrative staff was on hand.”   The next day, Roorda filed an Internal Affairs Statement of Complaint (“IA Complaint”) setting forth exactly the same complaints and allegations contained in the Misconduct Report he had filed the day before.   Within the body of the IA Complaint, Roorda affirmed that the facts and information contained therein were true as follows:  “I, Sgt. Jeff Roorda, do hereby affirm that the foregoing statement was given freely and without duress, and that all facts and information contained therein are true to the best of my knowledge.”
During the course of his investigation, Sgt. Shular interviewed Roorda, who, upon being asked if he had any other evidence that might support his allegations, “whether it be of a paper nature or any tape recordings or anything,” replied that he needed to confer with his attorney.   After doing so, Roorda acknowledged having tape-recorded his May 1, 2001 conversation with Chief Fredeking and later provided the cassette audio tape, which had been in the possession of his attorney, to Sgt. Shular.
In particular, Sgt. Shular concluded that the tape recording of the May 1, 2001 meeting demonstrated that Chief Fredeking did not slam his fist on his desk, did not yell at Roorda, and in no way attempted to intimidate Roorda.   The audio tape also revealed that while Chief Fredeking did at one point use some coarse language (“bullshit” and “crap”) to describe his overall impression of Roorda's unauthorized request to receive full sick pay while on FMLA leave,6 he did not yell and curse at Roorda as alleged by Roorda in the Misconduct Report and IA Complaint.   Most of this was further corroborated by Ms. Shaw, who was working at her desk located immediately outside Chief Fredeking's office before, during, and after the May 1 meeting.   Due to his past disciplinary record, the seriousness of the false reports filed by Roorda, and the other Departmental General Order violations he had committed, Sgt. Shular recommended that Roorda be terminated.
This guy is an idiot.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 12:14 PM
 
Either that or there are pieces missing. People usually won't blow their own feet off in such a spectacular fashion.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 12:34 PM
 
He literally incriminated himself.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I don't have the proper name to insult this person, but someone apparently lit the memorial on fire in the middle of the night.



Classy guy, whoever he is.
Yeah I saw that this morning. Suffice to say that people in the area are none too pleased.

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Yeah I saw that this morning. Suffice to say that people in the area are none too pleased.

OAW
Is it possible someone put a candle there and it went up? Or are we sure this was malicious vandalism?

EDIT: Also, those two pictures are from different places.

The poles are different (one is thicker), and there's a sidewalk in the right picture that is absent from the left.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Sep 23, 2014 at 05:37 PM. )
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2014, 06:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Is it possible someone put a candle there and it went up? Or are we sure this was malicious vandalism?

EDIT: Also, those two pictures are from different places.

The poles are different (one is thicker), and there's a sidewalk in the right picture that is absent from the left.
Yea, and one of the poles is burnt, and the other one...oh, never mind
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:12 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2