Police Corruption Thread.
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
mrttao
Well-known member
As I said, I am not defending the cop.
I am noting a completely unrelated issue.
We have two confirmed cases of this specific cop brutalizing dementia patients. In both cases he used blatantly excessive force against an elderly person infirm both physically and mentally. causing them to bleed profusely.
That cop should be in jail.
On a completely unrelated note to that cop. There was something off about that man's situation that he was able to get access to a car and drive in the first place.
I also saw no mention of him not having a license. I bet he had a license, which means he somehow was allowed to keep his license despite dementia
Uh, no. Not everyone can afford to put their dementia-suffering spouse or parent in a care home. He still has enough of his marbles to remember how to drive, was able to get his wife's or his kid's keys, and took off. It was probably the wife or kid that called the police on him to let them know there was an issue. That was a divided highway and he probably didn't remember because his brain is stuck in when he was in his 20s or something, and he turned on to the wrong side of it. And since he was of diminished capacity, he didn't realize the police were after him, which is why it was a low-speed chase. Rather like the Robert Leone case.
mrttao
Well-known member
... you do realize that childproofing works against adult invalids too?
A password protected car key lock box costs 30$
Also, as I stated, the police made zero mention of him driving without a license.
From which I drew the conclusion that the govt saw fit to let someone with dementia keep his driving license.
And, the fact is that man literally almost killed himself due to being unsupervised.
I do in fact understand that it is expensive to get such supervision.
but he actually needs such supervision to not die. The fact he does not get such supervision is tragic. and an indication of the breakdown of the nuclear family and financial stability.
because, it turns out driving against traffic is, by and large, fatal.
But if his family simply cannot afford to give him the full time care he needs, and as such he goes without, then it is very tragic.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
You can't supervise someone 24/7 all it would take is one slip up for him to grab some keys and take off in a car.
mrttao
Well-known member
1. It is absolutely possible to supervise someone 24/7. It just costs money and time and effort. Which is why one of my key points was EITHER suspecion of negligence OR a case of the economy being so fucked up they simply could not afford to properly care for him.
it says a lot about our society and the economic issues it faces. The entire family is probably working full time jobs with no designated home-maker, and not enough money to pay for help, which means he is being left alone to his own devices.
2. It is indeed entirely possible that this was a slip up and his caretakers just so happened to forget to lock their car keys that day. It is why I said I am "concerned" about "indications" of negligence rather "certain" and "disturbed" about "proof" of negligence. Because it is impossible to know for certain and I only suspect.
But as I stated, from all the evidence I strongly suspect there was actual negligence rather than them doing due diligence in locking car keys and guns away and just coincidentally making a mistake that day.
3. I also additionally suspect very high odds that there was completely seperate and unrelated negligence by the govt in failing to cancel the driver license of an invalid.
TLDR: I made a complicated post that addressed many different issues:.
a. Police Brutality (the cop should be in prison)
b. The economy and its disasterous effect on families ability to provide basic necessities.
c. High likelihood of Govt malfeasance (license).
d. IF and ONLY IF they are economically well off, the possibility of improper care by the family.
Last edited:
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
I mean this is all speculation and kind of irrelevant because the crux of the matter is a cop that has now beat the shit out of two geriatric dementia ridden old men.
mrttao
Well-known member
And I repeatedly said he should go to prison for it. And that all my other points are explicitly not in his defense and are completely unrelated to him.
The fact that a criminal in a blue uniform assaulted an innocent old man and brutalized him is utterly irrelevant to all the other issues I raised.
What does a cop brutalizing a man with dementia have to do with my comments about the economy? Absolutely nothing.
Like, if you saw a video of a cop brutalizing a homeless person. And someone said
> "how awful, that cop should be in prison."
> "Also in a completely unrelated note, that is explicitly NOT defending the cop, please do not tie the two together."
> "but, seeing a homeless person made me think how horrible it is that the economy is so bad that we have homeless people. And also drugs are bad too and cause homelessness".
Would you try to tie say that the person's remarks about the homeless are defending the cop?
They are clearly not. There are even all those disclaimers I posted explicitly for it.
I just saw a person with dementia and ranted about about the economy, its effect on the nuclear family, govt malfeasance, and the possibility of improper care for dementia patients from family (either due to outright neglect, or due to economic hardship, or due to simply being ignorant of what proper care is).
We literally have no idea as to the circumstances of this guy going for a drive. You are just making assumptions and freaking out over your own imagination, essentially. I have no idea either. My own experience comes from my paternal grandmother having Alzheimer's syndrome and my whole family being in denial about it. I also know about other examples of things like this happening thanks to the Amber Alert system more often than not being used for "silver alerts" about old people wandering off and occasionally even driving off with their caretakers not being sure where they went off to for any number of reasons.
As for the police making zero mention of him driving without a license, they kind of forgot about his license because they were too busy beating the shit out of him for dipping back into the car. Being trained to treat everyone as a potential threat, they undoubtedly assumed he was going for a weapon instead of the license they literally just asked him for. We have no idea if he actually had one, or if his swiss cheese brain thought that maybe he left it in the center console or glove box and he intended to look for it, because beating the shit out of him and then retroactively justifying it became the order of the day. As we saw in the first case, that old man had a canceled license to keep as a form of ID, and the police and the corrupt DA tried to use that as something they could charge him with, too.
mrttao
Well-known member
No, an assumption would be if I said "X happened".
I didn't.
I said "I wonder if it was X, or maybe Z, or maybe Y".
Where I literally listed conflicting possibilities of what could have happened and how each is concerning for a different reason.
The police made up an entire made up report to try to justify themselves.
Somehow they never thought to mention driving without a license.
This to me indicates high odd that he had a license.
Not absolute, but I never said absolute. I was using words like "concern" and "odds" from literally my first post on the subject
Update: Footage from the jail. Just shows that the police report was entirely fabricated in this case, because the staff at the jail all stated that they did not smell alcohol, and did not take long to figure out that he had something cognitively wrong with him. The jail's form shows he was denied for "illness requiring immediate medical attention." Keep in mind the DA had access to all of this and still insisted on trying to charge this man with a pile of charges. Seemingly in an attempt to protect these officers since a conviction would make it harder for there to be a lawsuit.
Police are downtown responding to another call when they hear gun shots. The gun shots were from a teen who shot at another, teen and missed him. The other teen ran away from the shooting and got away from them, and ran into a police officer, who shot him after less than a second of seeing him, and without identifying himself as a police officer until after shooting him. There was no weapon visible, and the officer had no way of saying this wasn't just some random person running from the shots being fired that he was responding to.
No doubt the San Diego Police Department will investigate this incident and find the officer acted within the bounds of department policy and did nothing wrong.
SWAT team busted into a house and shot a young man sleeping on a couch. He was not armed, he was not suspected of committing a crime. The police were investigating his uncle, however, and that's whose house he was in, but they weren't there to arrest anyone, they were there to search for and seize a computer. So why use a SWAT team? An interesting aspect of this case is the lack of media coverage of this case in spite of it involving a young black man, who actually didn't do anything wrong. Where's BLM for this one?
Last edited:
Deputies in two Georgia counties collude to harass a man for transporting his pet monkey through the state and knowing and asserting his rights, and are still persisting in pressing false charges for "following too closely" to semi trucks even though their own camera footage shows this to be false.
Orlando police officer caught speeding (80 in a 45) by a county deputy, refuses to pull over, then when he finally stops and is confronted, he refuses to show ID and leaves the traffic stop. Orlando PD says they fired him and he was charged, but he ended up getting his job back, charges dropped, and record expunged.