General Discussion

Logical

(22,457 posts)

28. I agree. And some 3rd party board enacted. Police cannot investigate themselves correctly. n-t

Reply to Dawson Leery (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 10:59 AM

Jun 2014

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Deputies Drag Woman Out of Car for Trying to View Name Tag [View all] damnedifIknow Jun 2014 OP

Excessive for sure but never, ever touch a cop. dilby Jun 2014 #1

Didn't her tax dollars buy that name tag? misterhighwasted Jun 2014 #2

FDP. ~nt~ b.durruti Jun 2014 #3

They are almost 100% untouchable...... Logical Jun 2014 #4

Nice putting "unions" in quotes b.durruti Jun 2014 #6

agreed-- I'm a delegate on my county Central Labor Council... mike_c Jun 2014 #10

Hold on a second. Police unions protect their members against irregular prosecution. It's just like rhett o rick Jun 2014 #11

Read about the Philly PD and get back to me. n-t Logical Jun 2014 #16

Read "War and Peace" and dont bother getting back to me. nm rhett o rick Jun 2014 #19

Ahhh, how cute! n-t Logical Jun 2014 #20

We are in complete fucking agreement. The Philly PD's union exists to shield cops msanthrope Jun 2014 #22

More union bashing. The police couldnt be "protected" if the management handles their cases rhett o rick Jun 2014 #23

Damn straight I'll bash police unions...they serve no public good, and shield the lackeys msanthrope Jun 2014 #32

You are so clueless on this topic that you should not even respond...... Logical Jun 2014 #38

Yep, long history. Some people are too clueless to realize it. n-t Logical Jun 2014 #25

Well..they see "union" and think that's the end of the conversation. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #33

Are you kidding? Police unions are divisive political entities that serve the status msanthrope Jun 2014 #21

Law enforcement "unions" should be banned. Dawson Leery Jun 2014 #26

I agree. And some 3rd party board enacted. Police cannot investigate themselves correctly. n-t Logical Jun 2014 #28

Coolidge and FDR said the same thing. Dawson Leery Jun 2014 #30

People often make this mistake Blecht Jun 2014 #5

Here, let me help you with the first part of that statement. FreedRadical Jun 2014 #7

+1 GeorgeGist Jun 2014 #8

What was her crime ? Willful touch, yelling at a cop, possible fleeing possible public lumpy Jun 2014 #9

Her crime was touching I guess but they sure can touch us a whole lot damnedifIknow Jun 2014 #12

Unless the targets of their touching have guns... KansDem Jun 2014 #35

I don't know if I agree that this has become the norm these days aint_no_life_nowhere Jun 2014 #13

See. Misinformed. FreedRadical Jun 2014 #14

seems like a lot of people here think it's ok for people TorchTheWitch Jun 2014 #15

There are a dozen non-violent responses the cop could have gone with first. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #17

he wouldn't have known if it was a threat or not TorchTheWitch Jun 2014 #42

Yup, personally I'm bummed he didn't beat her, justifiably of course. . truebrit71 Jun 2014 #18

Tazed... KansDem Jun 2014 #36

I would have to agree with this. Orrex Jun 2014 #24

A waitress won't drag you from the table and handcuff you damnedifIknow Jun 2014 #27

So I'd be ok to grab the waitress, then? Orrex Jun 2014 #29

Of course not damnedifIknow Jun 2014 #31

So if I ask my waitress her name and I think she ignored me, I can grab her? Orrex Jun 2014 #39

Is the waitress a person detaining you by force? Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #40

So I can grab a cop if he's detaining me by force? Orrex Jun 2014 #41

Nobody should be lifting any vests when stopped by a police officer. LisaL Jun 2014 #34

Which is the usual response lately damnedifIknow Jun 2014 #37