Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameisjim
The idea that most cops are good and there are only few "bad apples" can easily be proven false. Look at when a cop breaks the law and it's clearly caught on camera, all the other cops come to his defense. If they were mostly good, wouldn't they want to purge the "bad apples" when they are caught?
Here in Chicago, an off duty cop beat a female bartender on camera for almost two straight minutes. He was obviously guilty, yet all the other cops gave him special treatment, used police vehicles and their own authority to block the press and even gave him special rides to and from court so he could avoid the media. Why would they go to such lengths to protect this obvious "bad apple"? It's because most cops are actually bad with a few good apples here and there. They have adopted this "us against them" mentality and believe that everyone who is a non cop is out to get them. They dress and act more like a pseudo military organization instead of police officers meant to support the citizens who pay their salary.
BTW, I can post 10 stories in Chicago from the last year exactly like the cop who beat that woman and other cops protected him. Everything from beatings to killings. They are in the paper and you can google them. It basically proves the whole few bad apple theory as completely false, at least in Chicago.
|
I would disagree with you and can give you an example that is just the opposite.
In the town I live in (it is small) they had a cop of falsified a report and he got caught. He was fired. He sued the city saying that he was wrongly terminated and the union came to his defense. After 18 months his case made it arbitration. the arbitrator found that while he was wrong in falsifying the report firing him was too harsh of a penalty. They forced the city to hire him back and pay him his lost pay for those 18 months. When he came back none of the cops in the department would work with him. They refused to work with him. The district attorney refused to take any case that had his name on it. This left him as being useless. The entire department told the chief that he would have to fire them all if he was going to force them to work with this guy.
The guy stayed on and worked for another year answering phones and taking walk ins, but then the city was able to get his law enforcement certificate revoked so they were able to legally fire him.
In the case you point out, how many cops took part in helping defend this guy? Was it 10, 20, 50, 100? In Chicago which has around 15,000 cops. So less than 1% take part in helping to defend this guy and that makes all 15,000 of them bad? The reason most don't step forward publicly is because if they do some of their fellow officers might see them as unreliable and as someone you have to watch your back with when you are around them or working with them. Maybe some see their silence as an endorsement of the behavior, but that doesn't mean it is.