Originally Posted by Malloy

Year to date, the numbers are down. (from murder to namecalling) Right?

Originally Posted by Hospitalitygirl

And despite a blip or two, it started in August, 2007.

Originally Posted by Hospitalitygirl

YOU are saying they lied. They haven't necessarily lied, just amended the facts, which isn't the same as lying. There have been numerous studies and experiments to show what people remember and don't remember immediately after an event occurs. MOST people remember little. People whose job it is to remember, tend to be more accurate, but details can come back in fits and starts. I have seen this happen, and it has happened to me. I have a rather good memory, but it becomes a little better with the perspective of just a little time and distance to ruminate and reflect rather than just spew forth in the immediate excitement after something happens.

But the bottom line here is, YOU were not there, YOU really don't know how you would react in similar circumstances, and yet YOU LOVE to make snap judgments and criticisms despite the fact YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD DO OR HOW YOU WOULD REACT, DESPITE A LITTLE TRAINING.

Why don't you sit back, drink some chamomile tea, put your feet up, and wait for the trier of facts to decide what happens to this case next?

Originally Posted by ADX

It's sickening to me to see how so many people will rally around the supposed "victims" of the police beating and the media does everything it can to draw more supporters for the "victims". I don't have a problem with citizens being upset about the fact that the beating was unnecessary. More than likely these officers did not follow protocol and appropriate action should be taken.

What sickens me is that the media and most citizens won't rally around true victims. A woman in my neighborhood was abducted and brutally raped by three black men a few weeks ago. The news media wouldn't touch the story. I didn't see any people from the community demanding justice. Like many black on white crimes it was just swept under the carpet.

Yet, here's a case of three black males (two are hardened criminals) who were mishandled by police and the world is treating it as if it is the greatest injustice imagineable.

This world has become a twisted place.

Originally Posted by nuleader

Guess what? These crimes should be prosecuted.

Originally Posted by nuleader

Guess what? These crimes should be prosecuted.

Originally Posted by nuleader

Police change account of 3 arrests, beatings

AS THREE young men beaten and kicked by police in a car-stop arrest captured on videotape face a court hearing today, police officials have changed their account of the shooting they say led to the trio's arrest.

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news..._beatings.html


And if you think cops don't collude to paint a perfect picture, which supports lying and "shaping" evidence...
Cop admits to cover-up


Associated Press
ATLANTA - A former Atlanta police officer on trial for a botched drug raid that led to the death of a 92-year-old woman said yesterday he went along with a cover-up because he felt threatened by his fellow officers.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/national/18964794.html

Police in Gun Searches Face Disbelief in Court

After listening carefully to the two policemen, the judge had a problem: He did not believe them.


The officers, who had stopped a man in the Bronx and found a .22-caliber pistol in his fanny pack, testified that they had several reasons to search him: He was loitering, sweating nervously and had a bulge under his jacket.

But the judge, John E. Sprizzo of United States District Court in Manhattan, concluded that the police had simply reached into the pack without cause, found the gun, then “tailored” testimony to justify the illegal search. “You can’t have open season on searches,” said Judge Sprizzo, who refused to allow the gun as evidence, prompting prosecutors to drop the case last May.

Yet for all his disapproval of what the police had done, the judge said he hated to make negative rulings about officers’ credibility. “I don’t like to jeopardize their career and all the rest of it,” he said.

He need not have worried. The Police Department never learned of his criticism, and the officers — like many others whose word has been called into question — faced no disciplinary action or inquiry.

Over the last six years, the police and prosecutors have cooperated in a broad effort that allows convicted felons found with a firearm to be tried in federal court, where sentences are much harsher than in state court. Officials say the initiative has taken hundreds of armed criminals off the street, mostly in the Bronx and Brooklyn, and turned some into informers who have helped solve more serious crimes.

But a closer look at those prosecutions reveals something that has not been trumpeted: more than 20 cases in which judges found police officers’ testimony to be unreliable, inconsistent, twisting the truth, or just plain false. The judges’ language was often withering: “patently incredible,” “riddled with exaggerations,” “unworthy of belief.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/ny...562&ei=5087%0A


I don't know what to believe, yet, as it relate to the Philly case. However, let's all suspend our own biases in favor of or against cops, until an investigation takes place.

By the way, I posted the preceding for folks who foolishly say--

1. "This can't happen."
2. "The thugs are makin' it up."
3. " Cops don't lie, only criminals do."
3. "This is only about the black community whining."

Also, on a side note, should we just give cops absolute judegment to do what they feel is necessary to reduce crime?

Originally Posted by Hospitalitygirl

YOU are saying they lied. They haven't necessarily lied, just amended the facts, which isn't the same as lying. There have been numerous studies and experiments to show what people remember and don't remember immediately after an event occurs. MOST people remember little. People whose job it is to remember, tend to be more accurate, but details can come back in fits and starts. I have seen this happen, and it has happened to me. I have a rather good memory, but it becomes a little better with the perspective of just a little time and distance to ruminate and reflect rather than just spew forth in the immediate excitement after something happens.

But the bottom line here is, YOU were not there, YOU really don't know how you would react in similar circumstances, and yet YOU LOVE to make snap judgments and criticisms despite the fact YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD DO OR HOW YOU WOULD REACT, DESPITE A LITTLE TRAINING.

Why don't you sit back, drink some chamomile tea, put your feet up, and wait for the trier of facts to decide what happens to this case next?

Originally Posted by nuleader

Oh, this is rich! So, an opinion cannot be offered in the meantime? Your knee jerk reaction is to support such behavior before the so called "trier of the facts" have had their say. By the way, who is the "trier of facts"?

Moreover, is the "trie of facts" ever wrong? Is the "trier of facts" involved in a process which is biased one way or the other?