LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What do you call 57 Buffalo cops resigning?

The lawsuits would be debilitating...



Any confrontational arrest would lead to backing off
followed by a letter begging the perp to pretty-please
come down to the station and allow themselves to be arrested.


:(
 
SpeareChucker said:
The lawsuits would be debilitating...



Any confrontational arrest would lead to backing off
followed by a letter begging the perp to pretty-please
come down to the station and allow themselves to be arrested.


:(
Click to expand...

Follow the rules and don't fuck up, you won't get sued.
I can see how you'd have major difficulty with this, though.
 
oggbashan said:
Back to the OP - the resignations show what has been wrong for some time.

That their colleagues will support them even when they might be wrong and before the facts have been assessed shows what is wrong with the Police. They resigned in support of officers who are assumed to have behaved badly even before they knew whether any action would be taken against the accused officers.

While Police officers support colleagues without reservation and without waiting for an assessment they are protecting the bad apples. While they react like this, the unpleasant actions of a few will remain unchallenged.
Click to expand...

I would have done it too.
--Indeed one officer brutally shoved him aside, but no one expected him to fall.
So while they deserve internal investigation and even whatever charges, they don't deserve a Nurenberg trial via Twitter mob. And Cuomo putting them in the same bucket with George Floyd's killer? What an opportunistic pos.


But that's not why All of them resigned, massmedia gave us unverified news:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...hoved-peace-activist-75-expected-CHARGED.html

"two cops have since spoken out
'I don't understand why the union said it's a thing of solidarity. 'Some of them probably resigned because they support the officer,' 'But, for many of us, that's not true.'
'We quit because our union said [they] aren't legally backing us anymore. So why would we stand on a line for the City with no legal backing if something [were to] happen?"

icanhelp1 said:
Exactly right! The Ferguson effect is coming to a town near you. Recruitment will be a challenge and if you open police to personal lawsuits you won't have to defund, those towns will not have a police dept due to attrition.

I have some very close friends that are retired police officers and unanimously say they would not take the job today.
Click to expand...

bingo that too
 
He's a bit late, but President Trump has finally given the RWCJ folks their official Buffalo Talking Points:

He retweeted the OAN Russian website, that the Buffalo Police was "set up" by an "Antifa" guy.

Yes, I know that's lame and weak, but that's the line Putin got Trump to tell you to parrot.
 
FRom link in post #134:

However, two cops have since spoken out saying that claims they resigned in solidarity with McCabe and Torgalski are untrue and that they - and several colleagues - actually made the decision because the union said it would not legally back the officers.

'I don't understand why the union said it's a thing of solidarity. I think it sends the wrong message that 'we're backing our own' and that's not the case,' one anonymous officer told 7 Eyewitness News.

'We quit because our union said [they] aren't legally backing us anymore. So why would we stand on a line for the City with no legal backing if something [were to] happen? Has nothing to do with us supporting,' said another.

'Some of them probably resigned because they support the officer,' said another cop. 'But, for many of us, that's not true.'

If the Police union is refusing legal backing then that makes the resignations much more explainable.

A union should be there to provide legal assistance to ANY Police officer accused of anything so that the accused gets a fair and impartial hearing.

Whether the individual is guilty or not is irrelevant. Only a court or disciplinary hearing should decide that. If the union won't cover the legal representation - what is the point of belonging to it?

Whether the Buffalo policemen, or even more, those involved in the death of George Floyd can be tried by a fair and unbiased jury is going to be very difficult to arrange. Who has not already seen the videos?
 
?????

cinnefille said:
But that's not why All of them resigned, massmedia gave us unverified news:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...hoved-peace-activist-75-expected-CHARGED.html

"two cops have since spoken out
'I don't understand why the union said it's a thing of solidarity. 'Some of them probably resigned because they support the officer,' 'But, for many of us, that's not true.'
'We quit because our union said [they] aren't legally backing us anymore. So why would we stand on a line for the City with no legal backing if something [were to] happen?"
Click to expand...

So why are Unions no longer backing up cops, during their biggest time of need
??? (I'm asking because over here Unions are pretty good.)

Upon a superficial glance, it seems like a shitty thing to do: take their money for years and drop them the moment you risk larger financial losses.

Or is this about something else?
-Unions being under attack themselves, by the Public
-being mandated by Governers.



ETA
Oh, only saw your post now, ogg. Seems like the discussion is already rolling.
 
Last edited:
cinnefille said:
So why are Unions no longer backing up cops, during their biggest time of need
??? (I'm asking because over here Unions are pretty good.)

Upon a superficial glance, it seems to me like a shitty thing to do: take their money for years and drop them the moment you risk larger financial losses.

Or is this about something else?
-Unions being under attack themselves, by the Public
-being mandated by Governers.



ETA
Oh, only saw your post now, ogg. Hopefully you guys will add on to it.
Click to expand...

Who pays these enormous settlements given to victims of police brutality?
Hint: It's not Police unions. They have insurance companies that handle payouts.

The insurance companies are watching this spectacularly gross police brutality and realize no amount of cop fetishizing in court will detract from all the video footage. The insurance companies know they'll be on the hook for millions so they've informed the police unions that "riot protest policing" will no longer be covered under their policies.

This would make police departments (and taxpayers) foot the bill. So the riot squad bolted away faster that Boogaloo Boy in a combat zone. The going got tough, so they bailed
 
RobDownSouth said:
Who pays these enormous settlements given to victims of police brutality?
Hint: It's not Police unions. They have insurance companies that handle payouts.

The insurance companies are watching this spectacularly gross police brutality and realize no amount of cop fetishizing in court will detract from all the video footage. The insurance companies know they'll be on the hook for millions so they've informed the police unions that "riot protest policing" will no longer be covered under their policies.

This would make police departments (and taxpayers) foot the bill. So the riot squad bolted away faster that Boogaloo Boy in a combat zone. The going got tough, so they bailed
Click to expand...

thx., that makes more sense to me. Because I was pretty impressed by how Unions still appeared to stand by their payees, despite the adversity:

(pls. disregard the obvsly biased source, focus only on Mungeer's words):
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/new-york-andrew-cuomo-state-troopers

So it's Insurance companies. Money rules.
It remains?? to be debated whether they're legally in the right. Is there a fineprint in the contract they signed with Unions, that allows them to get out of it.
 
Last edited:
My father and I were both Union representatives and at various times had to defend colleagues at disciplinary hearings.

We won every case.

But later both he and I were chairmen of disciplinary hearings. Our experience from the other side was useful, particularly if the union rep was incompetent. We had to be fair and impartial and assess the facts, not the hearsay or the line manager's bias.

Much later I needed my union to defend me from unfair dismissal. The union rep was absolutely useless so I had to defend myself. I threatened my employers with an industrial tribunal case. They dismissed my assertion so I suggested they looked again at my CV (Resume in American).

They paused the hearing while someone got that information from my file.

The file showed that while at my previous employers I had successfully defended the management at 14 complicated Industrial Tribunal cases. My employers (and the union) had only experience of one simple case.

My employers paid me compensation and the personnel manager was sacked.

But a union who will not represent its members is useless.
 
cinnefille said:
But HE WAS TRYING TO SCAN POLICE EQUIPMENT WITH HIS CELL PHONE. w
In the midst of civil unrest and riots.

I just re-watched the video twice, and it's pretty clear.

It puts the two officers' reactions in an entirely different light.
Click to expand...

You are such an ignorant fool. The problem is not what happened before he was pushed/taken to the ground ( how ever you wish to describe it), but what occurred after.

Once the person was on the ground, and no longer any threat, no action was taken to ensure his safety. He was injured, and seriously as shown by the blood.

At that point the officer should have ether A: taken direct action, or B: ensured an ambulance was called and made sure either himself or another officer remained with the person until such time as medical aid arrived.

The fact is, neither of the officers did that, and that is why they are at fault.

I would really like to hear what was said when the officer used his radio, that might shed much more light on the whole situation.
 
cinnefille said:
But HE WAS TRYING TO SCAN POLICE EQUIPMENT WITH HIS CELL PHONE. w
In the midst of civil unrest and riots.

I just re-watched the video twice, and it's pretty clear.

It puts the two officers' reactions in an entirely different light.
Click to expand...

First of all, you don't need to be anywhere close to a police officer to "scan police equipment". Ask any shut-in at a retirement home on how they monitor police scanners for funsies. It's not illegal or unlawful to listen in on public frequencies.

Secondly, this whole "he wuz scanning! SCANNING!" talking point originated from the imaginations of the public relations staff at Putin's OAN news propaganda outfit.

Trump made the mistake of retweeting them and suffered an embarrassing first: for the first time in his presidency, he got "ratioed" on Twitter. You get "ratioed" when the amount of public comments exceed the "likes" of a tweet.

It seems even Trump's adoring fanbase has limits on their credulity. They couldn't abide the codswallop. YOU did, of course, but most trumpettes didn't.
 
RobDownSouth said:
First of all, you don't need to be anywhere close to a police officer to "scan police equipment". Ask any shut-in at a retirement home on how they monitor police scanners for funsies. It's not illegal or unlawful to listen in on public frequencies.

Secondly, this whole "he wuz scanning! SCANNING!" talking point originated from the imaginations of the public relations staff at Putin's OAN news propaganda outfit.

Trump made the mistake of retweeting them and suffered an embarrassing first: for the first time in his presidency, he got "ratioed" on Twitter. You get "ratioed" when the amount of public comments exceed the "likes" of a tweet.

It seems even Trump's adoring fanbase has limits on their credulity. They couldn't abide the codswallop. YOU did, of course, but most trumpettes didn't.
Click to expand...
they'll suck you dry, rob :D

scanning

ffs

:rolleyes:
 
A great new, added term is being coined for Trump. Feckless. It applies equally to the GB Trumpettes. :D
 
RobDownSouth said:
First of all, you don't need to be anywhere close to a police officer to "scan police equipment". Ask any shut-in at a retirement home on how they monitor police scanners for funsies. It's not illegal or unlawful to listen in on public frequencies.

Secondly, this whole "he wuz scanning! SCANNING!" talking point originated from the imaginations of the public relations staff at Putin's OAN news propaganda outfit.
Click to expand...

But my point isn't related to Trump & the far-R/L & opportunistic cronies, Rob.
Gugino WAS trying to scan their equipment.
His voodoo-like cell phone gestures could be interpreted as nothing else.

He and those two Policemen&the Superior who ordered: "disperse!"
were merely low-level employees, with minimum High-tech computer knowledge to understand that stuff

#metoo,
lacking high-tech knowledge & seeing a seemingly threatening gesture,
I would have panicked ^ pushed him with the same force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MusicForTheDeaf
You need to prepare today.
Replies
3
Views
121
Pabiporffor
P
shrek100
What do we all do- work?
Replies
1
Views
100
barefootgirl69
barefootgirl69
HelenofTroy25
What Lingerie Do Men Prefer?
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
Celticlight
Celticlight
SevenMuse
Guys what do you want to see?
Replies
12
Views
613
lifeis2short2b
L
sister jenny
Bernard Pivot/James Lipton questions.
Replies
1
Views
48
Bloodandglitter
Bloodandglitter
Back
Top