Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Dont fix anything .... your arrogants is proven by that action... MY original statement is the TRUTH and got my point across....... When COPS stop being FOOLS and acting like bully thugs the public will TRUST them and the bashing WILL end......... But because of the type of people recruited this will never happen.......

   

No, your original statement is bullshit and shows your stupidity and your ignorance. Now you say "the public", generalizing AGAIN. I take it I am not "the public", because I do trust the cops, especially the ones here.

If you blame "the people they hire", then you blame a whole generation of stupids, which i kind of agree with, but there are exceptions (and a lot of them), of course.

Don;t forget they have to do with what they get offered. If they don't hire anyone you are bitching about the lack of cops and as a result can not get all criminals off the streets, so please, stop your bitching and join the police force if you know it all so well.

   

Oh good, it's my three favourite anti-cop cockroaches, Hyperion, Andy and Digger! That's right, they live under the fridge feasting on crumbs but once I shine the light of facts on them, they scurry off back under the fridge to wait for the next crumb to fall.

Hyperion, did you ever realize your anti-cop screed was totally unworkable and represented sheer ignorance? I was hoping you would try and fix it, just so I could review it for giggles.

Andy, when are you going to present your comprehensive fact-based analysis of how Koester shot Bush? You said it was from behind during a pistol-whipping. You're not a mewling coward are you?

Digger. Well, you just make me laugh.

   

Wow, so you want to go there eh? Ok since you open the can of worms.

First of all just what is your inside information about the RCMP recruiting process over the last few years and then prior to that?

Second, problems are with most guys under 30? Even if its so that might still give them 8 years experience on the job.

If you knew about the RCMP process you'd know that from around 2007 until 2009, yes, they did drop their standards, however prior to that they were still high. Now their standards are high for those applying from Ontario and have not changed much in the rest of the country from the 2007 - 2009 standards. Basically its regional discrimination but they get around it in a way that's not important to the topic at hand.

Irregardless of all this it s not like the RCMP is still scraping the bottom of the barrel and while it goes to reason that the average troop going through training has a few lesser qualified guys then they would if all regions had the same standards as Ontario the vast majority are likely still just as qualified now as they have been historically.

So to properly make the argument that the lower standards are the result of the higher (if they are higher) incidents of rookie problems cannot be made unless one can show that these problem rookies got in on the lower standards. Most officers getting in now would still meet the old standards.

The debate about hiring officers 25 and under is an interesting and one I have not really seen played out by those in the system, likely to avoid flame wars and hard feelings. I should point out quickly though that in the 1060s and prior most of the officers hired were likely under 25 due to the requirements to get on the job, such as not being married and promising not to marry for like 5 years etc. I'd have to double check but they may have even had a max age cut off of 35. This was all back when they could get away with that stuff.

Here's one side of the argument to not hiring officers under 25. I believe some 21 year olds can be fully mature and have as much life experience as a 33 year old. However the risk comes into play when doing their background checks. They don't have many years to draw from and if something minor (like drinking related) comes up there is always the question of "is it just a youth thing or something that carried into adult life?" This question can't be answered as they are hardly an adult. They only have a few years of adult life to help predict if they will stay clean for rest of their lives. A 35 year old however can be looked at and if he had little of concern in his life since he was 18 it is a safer bet he will be a good dude the rest of his life. For example if he has no history of not handling his wobbly pops for 15 years its less likely he'll end up passed out in a house he broke into while pissed silly.

Now on the flip side, I've already mentioned the RCMP have hired under 25 historically and we've not had these issues, or at least they were not in the media. While the average age of an RCMP trainee these days is 27 (higher than in the past) this is still higher than most Municipal Police Services and we don't hear of a "major problem" with young officers with city services? So why are we hearing more about this with the RCMP? Young officers work fine in other services so why not continue to hire them? My old man was hired under 25 and served until he retired without any problems and when he got hired he worked (armed) for three years before even going to police academy. Having not hired him due to age would have kept a good officer off the street and still might today!

As far a University, wow, that's a whole other can or worms. I've seen officers posting with angry venom when people say someone with Uni would make a better officer. Not surprising most of them don't have secondary schooling and possibly could not have made it into Uni hence I think its a sore spot for some. This does not mean I think Uni should be required. Most service have never required Uni as a standard (I think there was a short period of experimentation with many) and the Services have been working well without the requirement. It is certainly a benefit to have it but if the powers to be thought it was really required then it would be.

Tell me this, who would you rather have responding to a dispute you were involved in? Officer X who is 28, single and fresh out of spending his whole adult life getting his Masters of Arts while living with Mom and Dad and never having a job in his life, or officer Z also 28 who moved out of Mom and Dads at 18, had a few jobs and before becoming a cop spent a steady few years working in a trade and is married with kids?

   

There are three people on CKA who are not the cops greatest fans therefore most people on CKA are not the cops greatest fans so the whole website needs fixing.

Seriously, the argument is formed the same as the few on here have framed the police argument; A few cops are dolts therefore they mostly all are so the whole system needs fixing.

   

Actually, in defense of Dayseed, he didn't say anything about CKA. He just thinks Hyperion, Digger and I are cop haters. I'll never understand why people get so ferocious about defending the cops. Cops need to be watched closely, or they can get out of control.

As for the recruiting thing - I gave where I got that from, an ex-RCMP who was criticizing the missing couple investigation. Guess he's a cop hater too.

   

Thanks for objectively defending me. BUT, I label you as a cop-hater because facts seem to have no bearing on your statements AND you don't seem to seek out answers so much as cruise anti-cop websites.

Ian Bush is a perfect example. There's an entire Commission's Report, specifically conducted for people like you, but you haven't even bothered to read it. And then, when presented with facts from it contradictory to you stated view, you ignore, deny or minimize them and carry on screeching away like they never happened.

What would you call somebody with a disdain for facts contradictory to his ability to criticize the police?

When you exhibit relief that you're wrong about certain police actions, I'll start to ease up on you.



Again, that would depend on whether or not he continued criticizing in the exact same vein he had been before he was presented with facts contradictory to his criticism.

   

I havn't read the Ian Bush commission report, and I don't cruise anti-cop websites. This isn't some huge topic of interest to me. I got into this discussion because Brock, who's postings I respect even when I don't agree with them, was so staunchly defending the cops - it was all black and white, cops good, all protesters bad. I would be very surprised if that was true.

I formed my opinions on the Ian Bush case from what I read in the mainstream media. It seems a lot of people see it my way and see the commission as a white wash. Doesn't mean we're right, but doesn't mean we're wrong either. The truth is hard to get at. But both blood spatter experts seemed to agree that the spatter evidence better fit if Koester was on top of Bush. And even the RCMP seemed to agree it would take some contortions for Koester to have been able to shoot Bush in the head while underneath him. The RCMP argument that a re-enactment would have no probitive value is just bullshit, IMO. Koester was the only one there, he's the one saying what happened, so let him act out what he said happened.

Quality of RCMP recruitment is going to be a matter of opinion, not fact. I think this ex-RCMP is in a good position to know, while of course the force will sing it's usual "everything is beautiful" song. Certainly there seem to be way more cop fuck up stories in the news lately. I don't know if this has always been the case, and the papers are just reporting it more. Actually I think that's pretty likely. I've certainly had my run ins with cops when I was younger, and unlike yogi, I was a pretty good kid, wasn't into crimes at all.

I'll stick to my position that cops need close watching or they can get out of control. You can stick to yours that there's just a very few bad apples, the system is fine and everything is good.

   

Telling these people about police misconduct is like telling a CHILD there is NO tooth fairy or Easter bunny.......

   

Stop right there. You've now admitted you've been arguing about something you haven't even read! That should be the clarion call you're in way over your head!

Also, you DO cruise anti-cop websites. Mostlywater.org, from whence you posted one of your Ian Bush articles catalogues items of interest about police misconduct. I posted that they're currently canvassing for anything they can use to complain about the G20. If you're that ignorant of how you get your reading materials, perhaps you need to learn the basics of historiography.

In short, you suck at it.



No, this IS a huge topic of interest for you since you appear on virtually every thread that hints of police misconduct arguing a variety of theories which you yourself admit you don't know anything about. That's more than simple circumstance.



Good. Let others do the thinking for you and then ape their ignorant opinions. You're destroying your own credibility.



No, it does mean you're wrong.



The truth isn't hard to get at. And this is what I mean about denial of facts. I posted on a previous thread that the Edmonton Police Service expert, hired for cash by the defence, didn't examine the crime scene, testified his opinion was an unscientific guess made from interpretive extrapolations from crime scene photos AND testified his opinion was made solely from one happenstance; Koester behind Bush. He admitted that if his assumed positions were wrong, his entire theory would be wrong.

The RCMP expert, who examined the crime scene, testified to a wide range of scenarios and how the blood spatter could rule out Koester behind Bush. According to him, the most prevalent explanation for the blood spatter was consistent with Koester's account of the assault.

You can read about that in great fucking detail if you're so bothered. So no, the experts did NOT seem to agree. You're ignorant.



No they didn't.



We just established that your opinion is baseless and ignorant. Perhaps you could explain why Koester's re-enactment is somehow more probative than his statement.

Oh, note to the ignorant, Koester DID give a statement the same day it happened. Just thought you should know that.



If you're talking about the missing Alberta couple, the RCMP admitted it was slow out of the gate. How come that doesn't factor in to any of your posts? AND they caught the guy! How come that doesn't factor in either?



Your stated aim is very different from the substance of your posts. There are oversight committees at all levels for cops that do keep an objective watchful eye over them.

However, what Canada doesn't need is your particular brand of paranoid ignorant witch-hunting.

   

You are the one crying...


Fail?

   

Maybe i missed your sarcasm if it was meant here as I thought it was pretty obvious I was using that as an example to show how saying a the actions of a few reflect what a whole organization is like.

If I missed the sarcasm, my bad!

   

The best way to "watch" cops is to know your rights. The charter is very permissive for the individuals and gives you rights that everyone should know. One problem about police abuse is that most people do not know their rights and what they can say or do in front of a policeman. They are used to that and some take advantage of it to intimidate.

   

andyt said:

You should have stopped right there andy.

   

+1 buddy!

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next