Why no protests, no riots, no burning down of my city?

[JoeB131]

Capitalism has not failed, it created the greatest country on earth. Even our so-called poor have it better than many working in the world.

Okay, but most of the rest of the world is more capitalist than we are. We'd look more like the third world, not less, if you wingnuts got your way.

You've spent 50 years chipping away at the New Deal and Great Society, and you've made matters worse, not better.

That you don't get this is what surprises me, as you sit there with no health insurance and a boss who considers you replaceable as a sea monkey.

Until we the consumers decide that price isn't everything, then there is no solution to the problem, because companies will continue to produce products cheaper by paying low wages, moving operations overseas, or replacing humans with robots.

Sure there is. Guaranteed employment for everyone. If you are able bodied, we'll find something for you to do, and we tax the rich to pay for it, because, hey, they can afford it.

Problem. Fucking. Solved.

 

[SavannahMann]

Ray, you haven't told me yet how you pay for thos police. You mention the dirt bike park. You really are an idiot. Instead of having the cops chase dirt bikes on the street, a chase that often ends in the bikers getting way, wasting the time of the cops, the idea is to give them a place to play.

Yeah, one place to play in the entire city of Cleveland. You call me an idiot? Did you ever ask yourself how these ghetto people are going to get those bikes to the bike park? Think those lowlifes will tow their two thousand dollar bike trailer with their twenty thousand dollar pickup truck there?

Use your brains for crying out loud!

Inner City Basketball programs gets the kids off the streets where they are going to do something eventually, and into something if not constructive, then at least less destructive.

Oh, basketball programs like Clinton's midnight basketball courts that resulted in three separate shootings?

This is the reality of the situation. The City spent way more paying out on lawsuits than they did on a dirt bike park, and you think that the city wouldn't pay ten times that amount if it went to a jury? For some of those cases, the city would likely just sign over all of it to the victim of police brutality.

Once you show the public you will not fight a lawsuit, you become a target. Ambulance chasers swarm in from everywhere just to get a cut in the payout.

If a police officer is found not to be doing anything illegal, you fight it until the end. Even if it costs more money to fight lawsuits, you set a precedent for those in the future that are looking to cash in.

Finally, the idea that if the cops aren't prosecuted, and convicted, there was no crime is the dumbest argument I've ever heard of in all my long life.

Sorry, but that's the way it works. In any shooting, multiple investigations take place. If the officer broke no laws, no charges are filed. if it's questionable such as the Tamir Rice case, it goes to a grand jury. If the GJ believes an officer broke a law, that officer is charged for the crime per the OP.

What you're saying (as so many liberals do) is that we should prosecute officers even though they didn't break any laws. WTF kind of country do you think we would have if we conducted ourselves with that jungle mentality? How would you like it if a police officer arrested you for having a supped up car, but didn't break any speed limits? If you broke no laws, WTF should you pay any penalty for not breaking any laws?

Cleveland may be dangerous, but again, where do you want the limited resources spent? Chasing some dirt bikes on the street? Or chasing the muggers, robbers, rapists, and murderers? Obviously, to show how intolerant you are on crime, you want hours long pursuits where dirt bikes take over the city center. How many hours would you suggest the police spend chasing dirt bikes on the streets every week?

Well genius, riddle me this: what do you think the parents will do when one of their children gets seriously hurt in that bike park? Think they will just pay the bill and say "oh well, it was my sons fault?" Of course not, there will be lawsuit after lawsuit with kids getting injured or even killed. And when a large enough suit is awarded, they will have to close down that two million dollar park, and then drug addicts and pushers will hang around there.

The city of Cleveland awarded Rice's mother 6 million dollars without the case being heard. The investigations and video showed that the police officers broke no laws. Now add that 2 million dollar bike path money, and we have 8 million dollars we could use to keep our police and maybe upgrade their vehicles.

Those inner city programs work. They reduce crime. Ohio has a massive Opioid crisis, and the Police, and Judges, and Prosecutors are figuring out that just tossing the people into the clink is not the answer. I know, i cn't tell you the time of day without a link to prove it. But for some reason you almost never provide a link, unless you happen to have it handy.

The state of Ohio put an issue on the ballot several years ago which would have allowed first time drug offenders to enter rehab instead of prison. I voted for that measure, but it was beat by a two-to-one margin. So what are police supposed to do about that?

My cousin lost her 28 year old son to dope almost two years ago. It tore her and her husband apart. He was addicted since the age of 15. They tried everything including several rehabs. Nothing worked. I also have a friend who's two sons spent years in prison. When they got out, they went right back to the dope again.

So you tell me, what would work? Rehab doesn't work in many cases. Keeping them away from drugs even for years doesn't work. So what are we supposed to do?

So I ask you again, how are you going to afford these costs? The lousy $2 million dirt bike park seems like a drop in the bucket that just from the links I've posted have cost more than $25 million, and another $17 million pending. You could pass a law that says the population can't sue the police, but I think even the Conservative members of the Supreme Court would object.

What we need is a law that states if no law was broken, you cannot sue anybody in a civil court. The stupidity that you can sue somebody who broke no laws is what leads to these ridiculous lawsuits that are sometimes won.

Civil court is where you determine liability. Not criminality. That simple fact keeps escaping you. I'll give you a for example you can relate to. Let's say you are walking to your car in the dark of the night in mean old dangerous Cleveland. There, a scary black guy steps out and shows you his gun in his waistband. You pretend to go for your wallet but pull your pistol out. He sees this and pulls his. You start firing, and he starts firing. You put him down since you have the Dirty Harry signature model pistol. But two of your rounds went stray. They did not hit the target.

The police show up and after beating on any blacks who happened to be there, give the corpse a ticket for littering and decide you were totally justified in shooting the baddie. They even stand and pose with you as you hold the head up of your game kill.

But we mentioned the two stray rounds didn't we? One of those struck Mrs. Herbert Thubwhumper who was pouring herself a cup of coffee in her kitchen. It requires a hip replacement to fix what was damaged.

You broke no laws, but you can be sued, and you would probably lose. It was your bullet that went flying. Now, if you are smart you have some sort of insurance. There are several, the USCCA is just one. I'd give you a link, but if you can't look up insurance well there is no hope for you.

They would suggest that you settle, because if you don't, then it goes to a jury. A jury who is going to hear about how Mrs. Herbert Thubwhumper is in pain all the time since you shot her with your Dirty Harry signature model pistol. The plaintiff's attorney is going to talk about all the less powerful guns you could have chosen, but you went with the baddest one you could find.

The insurance has a limit, and when the jury awards a bazillion dollars to Mrs. Herbert Thubwhumper you have to pay all that is left after the insurance runs out.

The cases that Cleveland settled came to just over 13 million. The ones they fought in court, two of them, came to $17 million. Now, most of us who went to a decent public school see it like this. $13,000,000 < $17,000,000. Now, Cleveland is fighting the $17 Mil, but if they lose they have to pay. Or the Judge will order the city property seized and the assets sold to pay the debt.

Now, before you post a reply about how things ought to be, just remember that Civil is different and not excluded by criminal activity. That's the way it has always been since the nation was founded. Civil court, lawsuits, seek to recover money or property for a wrong or damages. Abraham Lincoln as a lawyer was involved in more than one of these. So while you are decrying how fucked up it is that good cops who beat up people in handcuffs are sued, know that it not only is it not going to change, it shouldn't.

Your scenario is ridiculous. If I accidentally shot somebody, I would be arrested and prosecuted. It's my legal duty to insure that nobody is "downrange" of my target. It's called involuntary manslaughter and if nobody was killed, assault with a deadly weapon.

The problem is even if I shot that scary black man, killed him, his family has the legal right to sue me even though the police investigation ruled it justified. In other words, I did the right thing, I obeyed all laws, I used deadly force to protect my own life, and yet I can get sued anyway.

A more fair comparison is if I seen a house on fire, and a child screaming for help. I bust down the front door and save the child. But then, the parents of the child sues me for breaking down the door. The police would not charge me for the damage or forced entry. It would be perfectly legal considering the circumstance.

Um no. You wouldn't. You were by criminal law taking a reasonable self defense action. This is why police are not charged with murder when they shoot the hostage. Their intent was to shoot the bad guy so that is just fine.

The criminal suing rarely wins. Unless the actions are excessive. So the baddie you shot wouldn't have much of a case.

You refused to look at the cases the city settled. In every one the Department of Justice said the actions of the police were excessive or unjustified. The police did punch and kick a man in handcuffs on the ground. They had every right to catch him. They had every right to use the force necessary to restrain him. They did not have the right. No one has the right to beat up a man who is helpless and defenseless. That is not the actions of caliber defenders of anything. Those are thugs.

The city paid him $600,000 to drop the suit. There would have been at least another zero if it had gone to a jury.

Civil is about liability and damages. It has everything to do with responsibility and nothing to do with criminal activity.

I know this is hard for you to understand. I keep repeating it. It can't be said any more simply. Your cops are thugs and are costing the city a fortune.

What you posted was from a very liberal site, Cleveland.com. Cleveland.com is an internet extension of the Cleveland Plain Dealer which of course is a very liberal newspaper.

So instead of talking about a bunch of stories (most I've never heard of) why don't you take one at a time, so I can find out what really happened by looking into unbiased sources.

The problem in our country is you can sue for anything. We need a loser pays all system, and that would reduce the amount of phony suits greatly, because anytime a suit is discussed, cities and businesses pay out just to get it out of the way, and that encourages even more phony suits:

Group protesting Michael Brelo verdict settles civil rights suit with city of Cleveland

First, I'm not sure what you intended to prove with the link. The charges were dismissed against the protestors in the story, and using your standard for how awesome cops are, the lack of criminal prosecution seems to indicate they were innocent. False Arrest is not one of the powers normally associated with police. Unless you are of the opinion that Justice is served when INNOCENT people are arrested.

Second. I've mentioned in nearly every reply that the article I linked to was a report on the Department of Justice investigation. If this information has not been integrated yet, I'm not sure what more I can do to make it clear. You denounce the source, but make no effort to look it up yourself. It's not that you don't know, it's that you won't know.

If you are unaware because you refuse to consult Liberal sources, then all I can say is that you must have the shortest period of time reading the news of any citizen in the area.

Cleveland Police Monitor. Proposed Use of Force Policies Community Feedback (ARCHIVE)

News 5 in Cleveland. What's changed for Cleveland police since U.S. Department of Justice ruling?

USA Today. Which means it was national news, funny how you didn't hear about it. DOJ report: Cleveland police use excessive force

The actual report from the Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...veland_division_of_police_findings_letter.pdf

Fox News. Cleveland, DOJ announce settlement over police abuse claims

I don't know if it was mentioned on Rush Limbaugh, or on any other News Radio show. I guess that's where you get most of your news if you missed every single one of those stories. I mean, you never heard that the Department of Justice investigated your police department? You never heard that they had found a pattern of abusive behavior? You never heard that a number of these conclusions were based upon interviews of the cops themselves?

I could have posted a lot more links, but I can guess that you will reject them all except the Fox News, perhaps.

The fact of the matter is that the payouts that the city is making is saving money. The city fought some of the cases, and generally speaking, almost always loses. Right now they are appealing $17 million in verdicts against the police and the city.

So from the DOJ report. Stop it. Stop beating on people who are restrained. Stop using excessive force. Stop with the nonsense false arrests. Stop with the crap. It will allow the city to invest in things like police if they can stop paying the victims of those police.

The cops in Cleveland aren't great, they are't dedicated servants, and they aren't even fairly good.

I-Team asks why drive-by shooting caught on camera in Cleveland didn’t lead to police investigation

They had a drive by on video, and didn't make a report about the video. That's not good police work, that is bullshit check the block fake investigation. If there was justice in Cleveland, the first thing they would do is fire every one of those idiots, and start over. The Congress should pass a law. If you were a cop in Cleveland, you can't be a cop anywhere else ever again.

The excuse for not taking a report? No one was hit. Until someone is actually hurt, there was nothing they could do. Attempted murder, reckless endangerment, apparently those aren't crimes in Cleveland. I bet if someone had shot at a cop, it would have been a crime worthy of a multi state manhunt until that dastardly bastard was caught.

Want to know why your city is so dangerous? Stop blaming the fucking Democrats, and start blaming the fucking idiots wearing badges that you valiantly defend without exception.

They have the shooting on video. They have the gunman on video. Talk about an easy case for the prosecutor. What do you think Ray? Do you think that the cops recognized one of their fellow officers doing the drive by? Do you think the cops recognized one of their friends and decided to cover it up for them?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, one place to play in the entire city of Cleveland. You call me an idiot? Did you ever ask yourself how these ghetto people are going to get those bikes to the bike park? Think those lowlifes will tow their two thousand dollar bike trailer with their twenty thousand dollar pickup truck there?

Use your brains for crying out loud!

Oh, basketball programs like Clinton's midnight basketball courts that resulted in three separate shootings?

Once you show the public you will not fight a lawsuit, you become a target. Ambulance chasers swarm in from everywhere just to get a cut in the payout.

If a police officer is found not to be doing anything illegal, you fight it until the end. Even if it costs more money to fight lawsuits, you set a precedent for those in the future that are looking to cash in.

Sorry, but that's the way it works. In any shooting, multiple investigations take place. If the officer broke no laws, no charges are filed. if it's questionable such as the Tamir Rice case, it goes to a grand jury. If the GJ believes an officer broke a law, that officer is charged for the crime per the OP.

What you're saying (as so many liberals do) is that we should prosecute officers even though they didn't break any laws. WTF kind of country do you think we would have if we conducted ourselves with that jungle mentality? How would you like it if a police officer arrested you for having a supped up car, but didn't break any speed limits? If you broke no laws, WTF should you pay any penalty for not breaking any laws?

Well genius, riddle me this: what do you think the parents will do when one of their children gets seriously hurt in that bike park? Think they will just pay the bill and say "oh well, it was my sons fault?" Of course not, there will be lawsuit after lawsuit with kids getting injured or even killed. And when a large enough suit is awarded, they will have to close down that two million dollar park, and then drug addicts and pushers will hang around there.

The city of Cleveland awarded Rice's mother 6 million dollars without the case being heard. The investigations and video showed that the police officers broke no laws. Now add that 2 million dollar bike path money, and we have 8 million dollars we could use to keep our police and maybe upgrade their vehicles.

The state of Ohio put an issue on the ballot several years ago which would have allowed first time drug offenders to enter rehab instead of prison. I voted for that measure, but it was beat by a two-to-one margin. So what are police supposed to do about that?

My cousin lost her 28 year old son to dope almost two years ago. It tore her and her husband apart. He was addicted since the age of 15. They tried everything including several rehabs. Nothing worked. I also have a friend who's two sons spent years in prison. When they got out, they went right back to the dope again.

So you tell me, what would work? Rehab doesn't work in many cases. Keeping them away from drugs even for years doesn't work. So what are we supposed to do?



What we need is a law that states if no law was broken, you cannot sue anybody in a civil court. The stupidity that you can sue somebody who broke no laws is what leads to these ridiculous lawsuits that are sometimes won.

Civil court is where you determine liability. Not criminality. That simple fact keeps escaping you. I'll give you a for example you can relate to. Let's say you are walking to your car in the dark of the night in mean old dangerous Cleveland. There, a scary black guy steps out and shows you his gun in his waistband. You pretend to go for your wallet but pull your pistol out. He sees this and pulls his. You start firing, and he starts firing. You put him down since you have the Dirty Harry signature model pistol. But two of your rounds went stray. They did not hit the target.

The police show up and after beating on any blacks who happened to be there, give the corpse a ticket for littering and decide you were totally justified in shooting the baddie. They even stand and pose with you as you hold the head up of your game kill.

But we mentioned the two stray rounds didn't we? One of those struck Mrs. Herbert Thubwhumper who was pouring herself a cup of coffee in her kitchen. It requires a hip replacement to fix what was damaged.

You broke no laws, but you can be sued, and you would probably lose. It was your bullet that went flying. Now, if you are smart you have some sort of insurance. There are several, the USCCA is just one. I'd give you a link, but if you can't look up insurance well there is no hope for you.

They would suggest that you settle, because if you don't, then it goes to a jury. A jury who is going to hear about how Mrs. Herbert Thubwhumper is in pain all the time since you shot her with your Dirty Harry signature model pistol. The plaintiff's attorney is going to talk about all the less powerful guns you could have chosen, but you went with the baddest one you could find.

The insurance has a limit, and when the jury awards a bazillion dollars to Mrs. Herbert Thubwhumper you have to pay all that is left after the insurance runs out.

The cases that Cleveland settled came to just over 13 million. The ones they fought in court, two of them, came to $17 million. Now, most of us who went to a decent public school see it like this. $13,000,000 < $17,000,000. Now, Cleveland is fighting the $17 Mil, but if they lose they have to pay. Or the Judge will order the city property seized and the assets sold to pay the debt.

Now, before you post a reply about how things ought to be, just remember that Civil is different and not excluded by criminal activity. That's the way it has always been since the nation was founded. Civil court, lawsuits, seek to recover money or property for a wrong or damages. Abraham Lincoln as a lawyer was involved in more than one of these. So while you are decrying how fucked up it is that good cops who beat up people in handcuffs are sued, know that it not only is it not going to change, it shouldn't.

Your scenario is ridiculous. If I accidentally shot somebody, I would be arrested and prosecuted. It's my legal duty to insure that nobody is "downrange" of my target. It's called involuntary manslaughter and if nobody was killed, assault with a deadly weapon.

The problem is even if I shot that scary black man, killed him, his family has the legal right to sue me even though the police investigation ruled it justified. In other words, I did the right thing, I obeyed all laws, I used deadly force to protect my own life, and yet I can get sued anyway.

A more fair comparison is if I seen a house on fire, and a child screaming for help. I bust down the front door and save the child. But then, the parents of the child sues me for breaking down the door. The police would not charge me for the damage or forced entry. It would be perfectly legal considering the circumstance.

Um no. You wouldn't. You were by criminal law taking a reasonable self defense action. This is why police are not charged with murder when they shoot the hostage. Their intent was to shoot the bad guy so that is just fine.

The criminal suing rarely wins. Unless the actions are excessive. So the baddie you shot wouldn't have much of a case.

You refused to look at the cases the city settled. In every one the Department of Justice said the actions of the police were excessive or unjustified. The police did punch and kick a man in handcuffs on the ground. They had every right to catch him. They had every right to use the force necessary to restrain him. They did not have the right. No one has the right to beat up a man who is helpless and defenseless. That is not the actions of caliber defenders of anything. Those are thugs.

The city paid him $600,000 to drop the suit. There would have been at least another zero if it had gone to a jury.

Civil is about liability and damages. It has everything to do with responsibility and nothing to do with criminal activity.

I know this is hard for you to understand. I keep repeating it. It can't be said any more simply. Your cops are thugs and are costing the city a fortune.

What you posted was from a very liberal site, Cleveland.com. Cleveland.com is an internet extension of the Cleveland Plain Dealer which of course is a very liberal newspaper.

So instead of talking about a bunch of stories (most I've never heard of) why don't you take one at a time, so I can find out what really happened by looking into unbiased sources.

The problem in our country is you can sue for anything. We need a loser pays all system, and that would reduce the amount of phony suits greatly, because anytime a suit is discussed, cities and businesses pay out just to get it out of the way, and that encourages even more phony suits:

Group protesting Michael Brelo verdict settles civil rights suit with city of Cleveland

First, I'm not sure what you intended to prove with the link. The charges were dismissed against the protestors in the story, and using your standard for how awesome cops are, the lack of criminal prosecution seems to indicate they were innocent. False Arrest is not one of the powers normally associated with police. Unless you are of the opinion that Justice is served when INNOCENT people are arrested.

Second. I've mentioned in nearly every reply that the article I linked to was a report on the Department of Justice investigation. If this information has not been integrated yet, I'm not sure what more I can do to make it clear. You denounce the source, but make no effort to look it up yourself. It's not that you don't know, it's that you won't know.

If you are unaware because you refuse to consult Liberal sources, then all I can say is that you must have the shortest period of time reading the news of any citizen in the area.

Cleveland Police Monitor. Proposed Use of Force Policies Community Feedback (ARCHIVE)

News 5 in Cleveland. What's changed for Cleveland police since U.S. Department of Justice ruling?

USA Today. Which means it was national news, funny how you didn't hear about it. DOJ report: Cleveland police use excessive force

The actual report from the Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...veland_division_of_police_findings_letter.pdf

Fox News. Cleveland, DOJ announce settlement over police abuse claims

I don't know if it was mentioned on Rush Limbaugh, or on any other News Radio show. I guess that's where you get most of your news if you missed every single one of those stories. I mean, you never heard that the Department of Justice investigated your police department? You never heard that they had found a pattern of abusive behavior? You never heard that a number of these conclusions were based upon interviews of the cops themselves?

I could have posted a lot more links, but I can guess that you will reject them all except the Fox News, perhaps.

The fact of the matter is that the payouts that the city is making is saving money. The city fought some of the cases, and generally speaking, almost always loses. Right now they are appealing $17 million in verdicts against the police and the city.

So from the DOJ report. Stop it. Stop beating on people who are restrained. Stop using excessive force. Stop with the nonsense false arrests. Stop with the crap. It will allow the city to invest in things like police if they can stop paying the victims of those police.

The cops in Cleveland aren't great, they are't dedicated servants, and they aren't even fairly good.

I-Team asks why drive-by shooting caught on camera in Cleveland didn’t lead to police investigation

They had a drive by on video, and didn't make a report about the video. That's not good police work, that is bullshit check the block fake investigation. If there was justice in Cleveland, the first thing they would do is fire every one of those idiots, and start over. The Congress should pass a law. If you were a cop in Cleveland, you can't be a cop anywhere else ever again.

The excuse for not taking a report? No one was hit. Until someone is actually hurt, there was nothing they could do. Attempted murder, reckless endangerment, apparently those aren't crimes in Cleveland. I bet if someone had shot at a cop, it would have been a crime worthy of a multi state manhunt until that dastardly bastard was caught.

Want to know why your city is so dangerous? Stop blaming the fucking Democrats, and start blaming the fucking idiots wearing badges that you valiantly defend without exception.

They have the shooting on video. They have the gunman on video. Talk about an easy case for the prosecutor. What do you think Ray? Do you think that the cops recognized one of their fellow officers doing the drive by? Do you think the cops recognized one of their friends and decided to cover it up for them?

Well if you lived in the Cleveland area you would know that drive-by's or attempted drive-by's happen all the time. And don't tell me not to blame Democrats. Who do you think has been reducing the size of our police force these last ten years?

The Cleveland police will not come out for a traffic accident either unless somebody is injured, do you know why? THEY DON'T HAVE THE TIME!!!! So even if they made a report, it would go to the bottom of the large stack of real murders that take place in the city. There are only so many detectives; I believe only two for homicides.

Now as for your phony justice department links, they were created when Racist Holder was DumBama's right hand man. Everything to him was abuse of power by the police if the suspect(s) were black. This is the same Eric Holder that vowed revenge on George Zimmerman when he was acquitted on murder charges. The same Racist Holder that refused to bring voter intimidation charges against two Black Panther thugs. The same Racist Holder that never once poked his nose into a local situation unless the shooting victim was black. So any opinion that comes from that scum or anybody in his administration is BS as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, but most of the rest of the world is more capitalist than we are. We'd look more like the third world, not less, if you wingnuts got your way.

You've spent 50 years chipping away at the New Deal and Great Society, and you've made matters worse, not better.

That you don't get this is what surprises me, as you sit there with no health insurance and a boss who considers you replaceable as a sea monkey.

Your hangups are getting worse Joe. Really, see somebody. It's nothing to be embarrassed about.

Nobody has chipped away at your precious social programs. They are all intact and still creating more irresponsible people. The Great Society failed itself. In fact, in the last 50 years, we've spent trillions of dollars on solving poverty with very little results to show for it:

Robert Rector: How the War on Poverty Was Lost

Sure there is. Guaranteed employment for everyone. If you are able bodied, we'll find something for you to do, and we tax the rich to pay for it, because, hey, they can afford it.

Problem. Fucking. Solved.

Yes, have the rich pay for everything. That's what you really think?

Top 40% paying ALL income taxes, and leaving a tip

We can't even get able bodied people to take the many jobs out there now. What do you want to do, force them to work? I spend time in industrial areas all day long. They are littered with HELP WANTED signs; companies that have been advertising jobs for months and years, and still can't find workers.

So every able bodied person does have an opportunity to work now. It's just that industry is competing against government who provides people the ability to live off of others and not work.

 

[SavannahMann]

Civil court is where you determine liability. Not criminality. That simple fact keeps escaping you. I'll give you a for example you can relate to. Let's say you are walking to your car in the dark of the night in mean old dangerous Cleveland. There, a scary black guy steps out and shows you his gun in his waistband. You pretend to go for your wallet but pull your pistol out. He sees this and pulls his. You start firing, and he starts firing. You put him down since you have the Dirty Harry signature model pistol. But two of your rounds went stray. They did not hit the target.

The police show up and after beating on any blacks who happened to be there, give the corpse a ticket for littering and decide you were totally justified in shooting the baddie. They even stand and pose with you as you hold the head up of your game kill.

But we mentioned the two stray rounds didn't we? One of those struck Mrs. Herbert Thubwhumper who was pouring herself a cup of coffee in her kitchen. It requires a hip replacement to fix what was damaged.

You broke no laws, but you can be sued, and you would probably lose. It was your bullet that went flying. Now, if you are smart you have some sort of insurance. There are several, the USCCA is just one. I'd give you a link, but if you can't look up insurance well there is no hope for you.

They would suggest that you settle, because if you don't, then it goes to a jury. A jury who is going to hear about how Mrs. Herbert Thubwhumper is in pain all the time since you shot her with your Dirty Harry signature model pistol. The plaintiff's attorney is going to talk about all the less powerful guns you could have chosen, but you went with the baddest one you could find.

The insurance has a limit, and when the jury awards a bazillion dollars to Mrs. Herbert Thubwhumper you have to pay all that is left after the insurance runs out.

The cases that Cleveland settled came to just over 13 million. The ones they fought in court, two of them, came to $17 million. Now, most of us who went to a decent public school see it like this. $13,000,000 < $17,000,000. Now, Cleveland is fighting the $17 Mil, but if they lose they have to pay. Or the Judge will order the city property seized and the assets sold to pay the debt.

Now, before you post a reply about how things ought to be, just remember that Civil is different and not excluded by criminal activity. That's the way it has always been since the nation was founded. Civil court, lawsuits, seek to recover money or property for a wrong or damages. Abraham Lincoln as a lawyer was involved in more than one of these. So while you are decrying how fucked up it is that good cops who beat up people in handcuffs are sued, know that it not only is it not going to change, it shouldn't.

Your scenario is ridiculous. If I accidentally shot somebody, I would be arrested and prosecuted. It's my legal duty to insure that nobody is "downrange" of my target. It's called involuntary manslaughter and if nobody was killed, assault with a deadly weapon.

The problem is even if I shot that scary black man, killed him, his family has the legal right to sue me even though the police investigation ruled it justified. In other words, I did the right thing, I obeyed all laws, I used deadly force to protect my own life, and yet I can get sued anyway.

A more fair comparison is if I seen a house on fire, and a child screaming for help. I bust down the front door and save the child. But then, the parents of the child sues me for breaking down the door. The police would not charge me for the damage or forced entry. It would be perfectly legal considering the circumstance.

Um no. You wouldn't. You were by criminal law taking a reasonable self defense action. This is why police are not charged with murder when they shoot the hostage. Their intent was to shoot the bad guy so that is just fine.

The criminal suing rarely wins. Unless the actions are excessive. So the baddie you shot wouldn't have much of a case.

You refused to look at the cases the city settled. In every one the Department of Justice said the actions of the police were excessive or unjustified. The police did punch and kick a man in handcuffs on the ground. They had every right to catch him. They had every right to use the force necessary to restrain him. They did not have the right. No one has the right to beat up a man who is helpless and defenseless. That is not the actions of caliber defenders of anything. Those are thugs.

The city paid him $600,000 to drop the suit. There would have been at least another zero if it had gone to a jury.

Civil is about liability and damages. It has everything to do with responsibility and nothing to do with criminal activity.

I know this is hard for you to understand. I keep repeating it. It can't be said any more simply. Your cops are thugs and are costing the city a fortune.

What you posted was from a very liberal site, Cleveland.com. Cleveland.com is an internet extension of the Cleveland Plain Dealer which of course is a very liberal newspaper.

So instead of talking about a bunch of stories (most I've never heard of) why don't you take one at a time, so I can find out what really happened by looking into unbiased sources.

The problem in our country is you can sue for anything. We need a loser pays all system, and that would reduce the amount of phony suits greatly, because anytime a suit is discussed, cities and businesses pay out just to get it out of the way, and that encourages even more phony suits:

Group protesting Michael Brelo verdict settles civil rights suit with city of Cleveland

First, I'm not sure what you intended to prove with the link. The charges were dismissed against the protestors in the story, and using your standard for how awesome cops are, the lack of criminal prosecution seems to indicate they were innocent. False Arrest is not one of the powers normally associated with police. Unless you are of the opinion that Justice is served when INNOCENT people are arrested.

Second. I've mentioned in nearly every reply that the article I linked to was a report on the Department of Justice investigation. If this information has not been integrated yet, I'm not sure what more I can do to make it clear. You denounce the source, but make no effort to look it up yourself. It's not that you don't know, it's that you won't know.

If you are unaware because you refuse to consult Liberal sources, then all I can say is that you must have the shortest period of time reading the news of any citizen in the area.

Cleveland Police Monitor. Proposed Use of Force Policies Community Feedback (ARCHIVE)

News 5 in Cleveland. What's changed for Cleveland police since U.S. Department of Justice ruling?

USA Today. Which means it was national news, funny how you didn't hear about it. DOJ report: Cleveland police use excessive force

The actual report from the Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...veland_division_of_police_findings_letter.pdf

Fox News. Cleveland, DOJ announce settlement over police abuse claims

I don't know if it was mentioned on Rush Limbaugh, or on any other News Radio show. I guess that's where you get most of your news if you missed every single one of those stories. I mean, you never heard that the Department of Justice investigated your police department? You never heard that they had found a pattern of abusive behavior? You never heard that a number of these conclusions were based upon interviews of the cops themselves?

I could have posted a lot more links, but I can guess that you will reject them all except the Fox News, perhaps.

The fact of the matter is that the payouts that the city is making is saving money. The city fought some of the cases, and generally speaking, almost always loses. Right now they are appealing $17 million in verdicts against the police and the city.

So from the DOJ report. Stop it. Stop beating on people who are restrained. Stop using excessive force. Stop with the nonsense false arrests. Stop with the crap. It will allow the city to invest in things like police if they can stop paying the victims of those police.

The cops in Cleveland aren't great, they are't dedicated servants, and they aren't even fairly good.

I-Team asks why drive-by shooting caught on camera in Cleveland didn’t lead to police investigation

They had a drive by on video, and didn't make a report about the video. That's not good police work, that is bullshit check the block fake investigation. If there was justice in Cleveland, the first thing they would do is fire every one of those idiots, and start over. The Congress should pass a law. If you were a cop in Cleveland, you can't be a cop anywhere else ever again.

The excuse for not taking a report? No one was hit. Until someone is actually hurt, there was nothing they could do. Attempted murder, reckless endangerment, apparently those aren't crimes in Cleveland. I bet if someone had shot at a cop, it would have been a crime worthy of a multi state manhunt until that dastardly bastard was caught.

Want to know why your city is so dangerous? Stop blaming the fucking Democrats, and start blaming the fucking idiots wearing badges that you valiantly defend without exception.

They have the shooting on video. They have the gunman on video. Talk about an easy case for the prosecutor. What do you think Ray? Do you think that the cops recognized one of their fellow officers doing the drive by? Do you think the cops recognized one of their friends and decided to cover it up for them?

View attachment 142847

Well if you lived in the Cleveland area you would know that drive-by's or attempted drive-by's happen all the time. And don't tell me not to blame Democrats. Who do you think has been reducing the size of our police force these last ten years?

The Cleveland police will not come out for a traffic accident either unless somebody is injured, do you know why? THEY DON'T HAVE THE TIME!!!! So even if they made a report, it would go to the bottom of the large stack of real murders that take place in the city. There are only so many detectives; I believe only two for homicides.

Now as for your phony justice department links, they were created when Racist Holder was DumBama's right hand man. Everything to him was abuse of power by the police if the suspect(s) were black. This is the same Eric Holder that vowed revenge on George Zimmerman when he was acquitted on murder charges. The same Racist Holder that refused to bring voter intimidation charges against two Black Panther thugs. The same Racist Holder that never once poked his nose into a local situation unless the shooting victim was black. So any opinion that comes from that scum or anybody in his administration is BS as far as I'm concerned.

So you aren't interested in reducing crime, reducing the number of lawsuits, or in improving the performance of the police. All of those things are the usual fallout from the Consent Decree's you denounce. Yes, all of them.

Police consent decrees may reduce civil rights lawsuits, Texas study suggests

Cincinnati which is in some state, oh yeah, Ohio. They reformed the police to avoid the kinds of issues that end up with DOJ investigations, the kind of thing you scoff at, and what do you know, the reforms have reduced crime, improved officer moral, and that's after one lousy year.

Police chief sees improvement, room for more after 1 year on the job

Bah, what the hell do the Police in Cincinnati know about anything? Those dunces don't know what is going on. I mean, sure crime is down, cops are happier, but just because it works in Cincinnati is no reason to think it could work anywhere else.

During pretty much the entire Bush administration Los Angeles was under a Consent Decree, the kind of thing you denounce. Citizen complaints are down, officer misconduct reports are down, and lawsuits are down.

It would be impossible to end the lawsuits for all time, but it is possible to reduce them. It is possible to insure that you never have one you don't absolutely have to endure. It's not hard. Stop doing the things you're not supposed to do.

Bratton, the famous NYPD chief who did the whole stop and frisk thing credited the Consent Decree in Los Angeles for improving the department, and for making it better. But what the hell does Bratton know?

Federal judge lifts LAPD consent decree

I think we have come to a conclusion. The only kind of police you want are the brutal thugs that the Constitution says we aren't supposed to endure. The only kind of justice you want, is where anyone the cop takes a disliking to deserves whatever he gets.

If it was me, I'd rather see the money paid to improve the cops, than pay for their mistakes. But be my guest, run the city the way you all want, and then bitch about how bad it is.

INVESTIGATION | Percent of unsolved murders drastically increases while number of murders goes down

I can't imagine how the Cleveland police are not solving murders. I mean, attempted murder is not even a crime anymore.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you aren't interested in reducing crime, reducing the number of lawsuits, or in improving the performance of the police. All of those things are the usual fallout from the Consent Decree's you denounce. Yes, all of them.

Police consent decrees may reduce civil rights lawsuits, Texas study suggests

So you post a link about a Britt that's most likely liberal, and nothing more than an economics professor at best. That's all you have?

Cincinnati which is in some state, oh yeah, Ohio. They reformed the police to avoid the kinds of issues that end up with DOJ investigations, the kind of thing you scoff at, and what do you know, the reforms have reduced crime, improved officer moral, and that's after one lousy year.

Police chief sees improvement, room for more after 1 year on the job

Your article mostly points to technology for the success of the police force, not cops backing down from criminals. Next?

Bah, what the hell do the Police in Cincinnati know about anything? Those dunces don't know what is going on. I mean, sure crime is down, cops are happier, but just because it works in Cincinnati is no reason to think it could work anywhere else.

During pretty much the entire Bush administration Los Angeles was under a Consent Decree, the kind of thing you denounce. Citizen complaints are down, officer misconduct reports are down, and lawsuits are down.

It would be impossible to end the lawsuits for all time, but it is possible to reduce them. It is possible to insure that you never have one you don't absolutely have to endure. It's not hard. Stop doing the things you're not supposed to do.

Bratton, the famous NYPD chief who did the whole stop and frisk thing credited the Consent Decree in Los Angeles for improving the department, and for making it better. But what the hell does Bratton know?

Federal judge lifts LAPD consent decree

Always with the lib cities I see. Yeah, great results too:

2016: The Year LAPD Led the Nation in Fatal Shootings (Again)

If it was me, I'd rather see the money paid to improve the cops, than pay for their mistakes. But be my guest, run the city the way you all want, and then bitch about how bad it is.

INVESTIGATION | Percent of unsolved murders drastically increases while number of murders goes down

I can't imagine how the Cleveland police are not solving murders. I mean, attempted murder is not even a crime anymore.

Okay, so you give me a site where the murders have gone down thanks to our police force, and point to unsolved murders which I have already explained it's because of the reduction of police personnel under Democrat leadership. Are you debating me or on my side for crying out loud?

If the city of Cleveland is passing out money to anybody that files a grievance with them, you only create more takers on the free money. That's what needs to be stopped. But because Democrats generally side with evil and Republicans generally side with good, it's not surprising there are more payouts when evil asks for money from evil people.

 

[SavannahMann]

So you aren't interested in reducing crime, reducing the number of lawsuits, or in improving the performance of the police. All of those things are the usual fallout from the Consent Decree's you denounce. Yes, all of them.

Police consent decrees may reduce civil rights lawsuits, Texas study suggests

So you post a link about a Britt that's most likely liberal, and nothing more than an economics professor at best. That's all you have?

Cincinnati which is in some state, oh yeah, Ohio. They reformed the police to avoid the kinds of issues that end up with DOJ investigations, the kind of thing you scoff at, and what do you know, the reforms have reduced crime, improved officer moral, and that's after one lousy year.

Police chief sees improvement, room for more after 1 year on the job

Your article mostly points to technology for the success of the police force, not cops backing down from criminals. Next?

Bah, what the hell do the Police in Cincinnati know about anything? Those dunces don't know what is going on. I mean, sure crime is down, cops are happier, but just because it works in Cincinnati is no reason to think it could work anywhere else.

During pretty much the entire Bush administration Los Angeles was under a Consent Decree, the kind of thing you denounce. Citizen complaints are down, officer misconduct reports are down, and lawsuits are down.

It would be impossible to end the lawsuits for all time, but it is possible to reduce them. It is possible to insure that you never have one you don't absolutely have to endure. It's not hard. Stop doing the things you're not supposed to do.

Bratton, the famous NYPD chief who did the whole stop and frisk thing credited the Consent Decree in Los Angeles for improving the department, and for making it better. But what the hell does Bratton know?

Federal judge lifts LAPD consent decree

Always with the lib cities I see. Yeah, great results too:

2016: The Year LAPD Led the Nation in Fatal Shootings (Again)

If it was me, I'd rather see the money paid to improve the cops, than pay for their mistakes. But be my guest, run the city the way you all want, and then bitch about how bad it is.

INVESTIGATION | Percent of unsolved murders drastically increases while number of murders goes down

I can't imagine how the Cleveland police are not solving murders. I mean, attempted murder is not even a crime anymore.

Okay, so you give me a site where the murders have gone down thanks to our police force, and point to unsolved murders which I have already explained it's because of the reduction of police personnel under Democrat leadership. Are you debating me or on my side for crying out loud?

If the city of Cleveland is passing out money to anybody that files a grievance with them, you only create more takers on the free money. That's what needs to be stopped. But because Democrats generally side with evil and Republicans generally side with good, it's not surprising there are more payouts when evil asks for money from evil people.

Ray, I tricked you on Cincinnati. I gave you the tip of the iceberg, an article that mentioned only the technology, because I knew you would do one of two things. You would either denounce the source as Liberal, or just say it was all due to the tech. You did both. It shows that you are ill informed on Ohio, and probably Cleveland.

Use of force by the Cincinnati Police is down 70% from where it was in 2001 when there was a riot in the city because of a police involved shooting. That city, like Cleveland was investigated by the Feds. Only they were investigated during the administration of.... George W. Bush. Fucking Republican Liberals amirite?

Training for the cops was changed. Policies were changed, and guess what? That's right, it worked. The technology is a part, but a small part.

A Tensing trial legacy: strains between Cincinnati’s police union and reform efforts

Chicago is studying the techniques that Cincinnati has adapted as possible solutions to their own problems.

On police reform deal with feds, Chicago can learn from Cincinnati

Cincinnati is an example of what a city with problems with the police can do. Is it perfect? Not even close. Is it a damn sight better than most of the others out there? Yep. It stands head and shoulders above cities like Cleveland where the dunces won't even consider adapting things like constitutional policing. Apparently these types of shallow end of the gene pool folks actually believe that if the cops obey the law, the bad guys go free. It turns out that when the cops obey the law, the bad guys go to prison, and get this, crime drops.

14 Years Ago, Riots Shook Cincinnati — And the City Revolutionized Its Police Force

They investigate and write reports on things like Attempted Murder, and Assault with a Deadly weapon, and if there is video, they submit it. That way if someone is shot by a drive by later that day, they have a guy who was doing it earlier, and he might be involved. It might behoove the police to interview the baddie and find out how bad he is. Not plant drugs to have an excuse to arrest him, not beat him up after you get him in cuffs. I mean, Cincinnati is civilized, not like Cleveland and the barbaric cut the leash and let the cops run amok folks that are determined not to see any change there.

You get the cops you deserve Ray. You deserve barbaric cops that cost the city millions of dollars every year in Civil Rights Lawsuit Settlements. Instead of looking at the actions of the police to find out how to change it so they aren't doing things that will get the city sued, you're blaming the victims of the abuses. I bet you tell women they were asking to get assaulted don't you? If only they had dressed more conservatively, and carried a gun, it wouldn't happen right?

By the way, I haven't asked in a while. You don't have a link on the fanboy police oath you posted yet do you? You know, I asked for a video, or news story were someone actually swore that oath? I provided plenty of both to support my assertion that California Police swore a completely different oath.

Ray, you are predictable. It's always the Democrats Fault. It's always the Liberals who are screwiing up your perfectly good Nation, State, or City.

Well, you don't see it now, because you won't.

 

[francoHFW]

CLEVELAND-- A Cleveland police officer was acquitted of negligent homicide on Friday.

Alan Buford was charged after fatally shooting a burglary suspect outside a Parkwood Avenue store on March 19, 2015.

Buford and his partner confronted Brandon Jones, 18, as he was leaving the Parkwood Grocery with a bag of stolen cigarettes, the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office said.

Cleveland police said the officers got into a struggle with Jones when they tried to arrest him. That's when Buford fired his service weapon, killing Jones.

Jones did not have a weapon.

Buford's attorney argued the shooting was justified because a reasonable officer would have feared for his life.

Cleveland officer acquitted in deadly shooting of unarmed burglary suspect

I find it amazing how the media controls our minds and thoughts. Just a question for all of you who don't live in the Cleveland area: did you hear about this story yet? Do you think you will?

Before you liberals chime in responding to the topic and not clicking the link, the police officer that killed this unarmed 18 year old black suspect is also African American. Next question: why did this story not make national media?

Because it's not controversial? Anywy all the "news" channels are too busy gabbing about God knows what about Trump, and NK...

 

[francoHFW]

Civil court is where you determine liability. Not criminality. That simple fact keeps escaping you. I'll give you a for example you can relate to. Let's say you are walking to your car in the dark of the night in mean old dangerous Cleveland. There, a scary black guy steps out and shows you his gun in his waistband. You pretend to go for your wallet but pull your pistol out. He sees this and pulls his. You start firing, and he starts firing. You put him down since you have the Dirty Harry signature model pistol. But two of your rounds went stray. They did not hit the target.

The police show up and after beating on any blacks who happened to be there, give the corpse a ticket for littering and decide you were totally justified in shooting the baddie. They even stand and pose with you as you hold the head up of your game kill.

But we mentioned the two stray rounds didn't we? One of those struck Mrs. Herbert Thubwhumper who was pouring herself a cup of coffee in her kitchen. It requires a hip replacement to fix what was damaged.

You broke no laws, but you can be sued, and you would probably lose. It was your bullet that went flying. Now, if you are smart you have some sort of insurance. There are several, the USCCA is just one. I'd give you a link, but if you can't look up insurance well there is no hope for you.

They would suggest that you settle, because if you don't, then it goes to a jury. A jury who is going to hear about how Mrs. Herbert Thubwhumper is in pain all the time since you shot her with your Dirty Harry signature model pistol. The plaintiff's attorney is going to talk about all the less powerful guns you could have chosen, but you went with the baddest one you could find.

The insurance has a limit, and when the jury awards a bazillion dollars to Mrs. Herbert Thubwhumper you have to pay all that is left after the insurance runs out.

The cases that Cleveland settled came to just over 13 million. The ones they fought in court, two of them, came to $17 million. Now, most of us who went to a decent public school see it like this. $13,000,000 < $17,000,000. Now, Cleveland is fighting the $17 Mil, but if they lose they have to pay. Or the Judge will order the city property seized and the assets sold to pay the debt.

Now, before you post a reply about how things ought to be, just remember that Civil is different and not excluded by criminal activity. That's the way it has always been since the nation was founded. Civil court, lawsuits, seek to recover money or property for a wrong or damages. Abraham Lincoln as a lawyer was involved in more than one of these. So while you are decrying how fucked up it is that good cops who beat up people in handcuffs are sued, know that it not only is it not going to change, it shouldn't.

Your scenario is ridiculous. If I accidentally shot somebody, I would be arrested and prosecuted. It's my legal duty to insure that nobody is "downrange" of my target. It's called involuntary manslaughter and if nobody was killed, assault with a deadly weapon.

The problem is even if I shot that scary black man, killed him, his family has the legal right to sue me even though the police investigation ruled it justified. In other words, I did the right thing, I obeyed all laws, I used deadly force to protect my own life, and yet I can get sued anyway.

A more fair comparison is if I seen a house on fire, and a child screaming for help. I bust down the front door and save the child. But then, the parents of the child sues me for breaking down the door. The police would not charge me for the damage or forced entry. It would be perfectly legal considering the circumstance.

Um no. You wouldn't. You were by criminal law taking a reasonable self defense action. This is why police are not charged with murder when they shoot the hostage. Their intent was to shoot the bad guy so that is just fine.

The criminal suing rarely wins. Unless the actions are excessive. So the baddie you shot wouldn't have much of a case.

You refused to look at the cases the city settled. In every one the Department of Justice said the actions of the police were excessive or unjustified. The police did punch and kick a man in handcuffs on the ground. They had every right to catch him. They had every right to use the force necessary to restrain him. They did not have the right. No one has the right to beat up a man who is helpless and defenseless. That is not the actions of caliber defenders of anything. Those are thugs.

The city paid him $600,000 to drop the suit. There would have been at least another zero if it had gone to a jury.

Civil is about liability and damages. It has everything to do with responsibility and nothing to do with criminal activity.

I know this is hard for you to understand. I keep repeating it. It can't be said any more simply. Your cops are thugs and are costing the city a fortune.

What you posted was from a very liberal site, Cleveland.com. Cleveland.com is an internet extension of the Cleveland Plain Dealer which of course is a very liberal newspaper.

So instead of talking about a bunch of stories (most I've never heard of) why don't you take one at a time, so I can find out what really happened by looking into unbiased sources.

The problem in our country is you can sue for anything. We need a loser pays all system, and that would reduce the amount of phony suits greatly, because anytime a suit is discussed, cities and businesses pay out just to get it out of the way, and that encourages even more phony suits:

Group protesting Michael Brelo verdict settles civil rights suit with city of Cleveland

First, I'm not sure what you intended to prove with the link. The charges were dismissed against the protestors in the story, and using your standard for how awesome cops are, the lack of criminal prosecution seems to indicate they were innocent. False Arrest is not one of the powers normally associated with police. Unless you are of the opinion that Justice is served when INNOCENT people are arrested.

Second. I've mentioned in nearly every reply that the article I linked to was a report on the Department of Justice investigation. If this information has not been integrated yet, I'm not sure what more I can do to make it clear. You denounce the source, but make no effort to look it up yourself. It's not that you don't know, it's that you won't know.

If you are unaware because you refuse to consult Liberal sources, then all I can say is that you must have the shortest period of time reading the news of any citizen in the area.

Cleveland Police Monitor. Proposed Use of Force Policies Community Feedback (ARCHIVE)

News 5 in Cleveland. What's changed for Cleveland police since U.S. Department of Justice ruling?

USA Today. Which means it was national news, funny how you didn't hear about it. DOJ report: Cleveland police use excessive force

The actual report from the Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...veland_division_of_police_findings_letter.pdf

Fox News. Cleveland, DOJ announce settlement over police abuse claims

I don't know if it was mentioned on Rush Limbaugh, or on any other News Radio show. I guess that's where you get most of your news if you missed every single one of those stories. I mean, you never heard that the Department of Justice investigated your police department? You never heard that they had found a pattern of abusive behavior? You never heard that a number of these conclusions were based upon interviews of the cops themselves?

I could have posted a lot more links, but I can guess that you will reject them all except the Fox News, perhaps.

The fact of the matter is that the payouts that the city is making is saving money. The city fought some of the cases, and generally speaking, almost always loses. Right now they are appealing $17 million in verdicts against the police and the city.

So from the DOJ report. Stop it. Stop beating on people who are restrained. Stop using excessive force. Stop with the nonsense false arrests. Stop with the crap. It will allow the city to invest in things like police if they can stop paying the victims of those police.

The cops in Cleveland aren't great, they are't dedicated servants, and they aren't even fairly good.

I-Team asks why drive-by shooting caught on camera in Cleveland didn’t lead to police investigation

They had a drive by on video, and didn't make a report about the video. That's not good police work, that is bullshit check the block fake investigation. If there was justice in Cleveland, the first thing they would do is fire every one of those idiots, and start over. The Congress should pass a law. If you were a cop in Cleveland, you can't be a cop anywhere else ever again.

The excuse for not taking a report? No one was hit. Until someone is actually hurt, there was nothing they could do. Attempted murder, reckless endangerment, apparently those aren't crimes in Cleveland. I bet if someone had shot at a cop, it would have been a crime worthy of a multi state manhunt until that dastardly bastard was caught.

Want to know why your city is so dangerous? Stop blaming the fucking Democrats, and start blaming the fucking idiots wearing badges that you valiantly defend without exception.

They have the shooting on video. They have the gunman on video. Talk about an easy case for the prosecutor. What do you think Ray? Do you think that the cops recognized one of their fellow officers doing the drive by? Do you think the cops recognized one of their friends and decided to cover it up for them?

View attachment 142847

Well if you lived in the Cleveland area you would know that drive-by's or attempted drive-by's happen all the time. And don't tell me not to blame Democrats. Who do you think has been reducing the size of our police force these last ten years?

The Cleveland police will not come out for a traffic accident either unless somebody is injured, do you know why? THEY DON'T HAVE THE TIME!!!! So even if they made a report, it would go to the bottom of the large stack of real murders that take place in the city. There are only so many detectives; I believe only two for homicides.

Now as for your phony justice department links, they were created when Racist Holder was DumBama's right hand man. Everything to him was abuse of power by the police if the suspect(s) were black. This is the same Eric Holder that vowed revenge on George Zimmerman when he was acquitted on murder charges. The same Racist Holder that refused to bring voter intimidation charges against two Black Panther thugs. The same Racist Holder that never once poked his nose into a local situation unless the shooting victim was black. So any opinion that comes from that scum or anybody in his administration is BS as far as I'm concerned.

Irrelevant BS.The PROBLEM is the bad economy for ALL the nonrich in the GOP pander to the rich USA...and a fear mongering RW media...

Because there's no more Obama or no Hillary to incite them to riot?

That's my guess.

You dupes think all such deaths go national? Buffalo an d Rochester have these and they never get protested. Let alone "riots" you are bombarded with you are bombarded with on Fox etc. A few wannabees punks vandalizing 6 months ago......Hater dupes...ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[Papageorgio]

Riots are only for the left.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you aren't interested in reducing crime, reducing the number of lawsuits, or in improving the performance of the police. All of those things are the usual fallout from the Consent Decree's you denounce. Yes, all of them.

Police consent decrees may reduce civil rights lawsuits, Texas study suggests

So you post a link about a Britt that's most likely liberal, and nothing more than an economics professor at best. That's all you have?

Cincinnati which is in some state, oh yeah, Ohio. They reformed the police to avoid the kinds of issues that end up with DOJ investigations, the kind of thing you scoff at, and what do you know, the reforms have reduced crime, improved officer moral, and that's after one lousy year.

Police chief sees improvement, room for more after 1 year on the job

Your article mostly points to technology for the success of the police force, not cops backing down from criminals. Next?

Bah, what the hell do the Police in Cincinnati know about anything? Those dunces don't know what is going on. I mean, sure crime is down, cops are happier, but just because it works in Cincinnati is no reason to think it could work anywhere else.

During pretty much the entire Bush administration Los Angeles was under a Consent Decree, the kind of thing you denounce. Citizen complaints are down, officer misconduct reports are down, and lawsuits are down.

It would be impossible to end the lawsuits for all time, but it is possible to reduce them. It is possible to insure that you never have one you don't absolutely have to endure. It's not hard. Stop doing the things you're not supposed to do.

Bratton, the famous NYPD chief who did the whole stop and frisk thing credited the Consent Decree in Los Angeles for improving the department, and for making it better. But what the hell does Bratton know?

Federal judge lifts LAPD consent decree

Always with the lib cities I see. Yeah, great results too:

2016: The Year LAPD Led the Nation in Fatal Shootings (Again)

If it was me, I'd rather see the money paid to improve the cops, than pay for their mistakes. But be my guest, run the city the way you all want, and then bitch about how bad it is.

INVESTIGATION | Percent of unsolved murders drastically increases while number of murders goes down

I can't imagine how the Cleveland police are not solving murders. I mean, attempted murder is not even a crime anymore.

Okay, so you give me a site where the murders have gone down thanks to our police force, and point to unsolved murders which I have already explained it's because of the reduction of police personnel under Democrat leadership. Are you debating me or on my side for crying out loud?

If the city of Cleveland is passing out money to anybody that files a grievance with them, you only create more takers on the free money. That's what needs to be stopped. But because Democrats generally side with evil and Republicans generally side with good, it's not surprising there are more payouts when evil asks for money from evil people.

Ray, I tricked you on Cincinnati. I gave you the tip of the iceberg, an article that mentioned only the technology, because I knew you would do one of two things. You would either denounce the source as Liberal, or just say it was all due to the tech. You did both. It shows that you are ill informed on Ohio, and probably Cleveland.

Use of force by the Cincinnati Police is down 70% from where it was in 2001 when there was a riot in the city because of a police involved shooting. That city, like Cleveland was investigated by the Feds. Only they were investigated during the administration of.... George W. Bush. Fucking Republican Liberals amirite?

Training for the cops was changed. Policies were changed, and guess what? That's right, it worked. The technology is a part, but a small part.

A Tensing trial legacy: strains between Cincinnati’s police union and reform efforts

Chicago is studying the techniques that Cincinnati has adapted as possible solutions to their own problems.

On police reform deal with feds, Chicago can learn from Cincinnati

Cincinnati is an example of what a city with problems with the police can do. Is it perfect? Not even close. Is it a damn sight better than most of the others out there? Yep. It stands head and shoulders above cities like Cleveland where the dunces won't even consider adapting things like constitutional policing. Apparently these types of shallow end of the gene pool folks actually believe that if the cops obey the law, the bad guys go free. It turns out that when the cops obey the law, the bad guys go to prison, and get this, crime drops.

14 Years Ago, Riots Shook Cincinnati — And the City Revolutionized Its Police Force

They investigate and write reports on things like Attempted Murder, and Assault with a Deadly weapon, and if there is video, they submit it. That way if someone is shot by a drive by later that day, they have a guy who was doing it earlier, and he might be involved. It might behoove the police to interview the baddie and find out how bad he is. Not plant drugs to have an excuse to arrest him, not beat him up after you get him in cuffs. I mean, Cincinnati is civilized, not like Cleveland and the barbaric cut the leash and let the cops run amok folks that are determined not to see any change there.

You get the cops you deserve Ray. You deserve barbaric cops that cost the city millions of dollars every year in Civil Rights Lawsuit Settlements. Instead of looking at the actions of the police to find out how to change it so they aren't doing things that will get the city sued, you're blaming the victims of the abuses. I bet you tell women they were asking to get assaulted don't you? If only they had dressed more conservatively, and carried a gun, it wouldn't happen right?

By the way, I haven't asked in a while. You don't have a link on the fanboy police oath you posted yet do you? You know, I asked for a video, or news story were someone actually swore that oath? I provided plenty of both to support my assertion that California Police swore a completely different oath.

Ray, you are predictable. It's always the Democrats Fault. It's always the Liberals who are screwiing up your perfectly good Nation, State, or City.

Well, you don't see it now, because you won't.

The number of fatal shootings by Cincinnati police are rising along with the questions about how they are handled.

An Enquirer analysis shows that the average rate per year of such shootings double that of the 2000s, when 12 were killed. Eighteen have died so far this decade.

In addition, the rate of such deaths is much higher in Cincinnati than other surrounding cities including Louisville, Indianapolis, Columbus or even Cleveland.

In an interview with The Enquirer, CPD Chief Eliot Isaac expressed “alarm” over the rise in fatal police shootings, but declined to speculate.

“There’s nothing I can pinpoint right now that can explain it … but I am open to further analysis,” Isaac said.

This lack of answers doesn’t surprise community leaders such as Black Lives Matter local organizer Brian Taylor, who questions whether there is an increase in aggression by CPD officers.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...led-cincinnati-police-rising-decade/96616492/