2013: a year of very bad cops (and some good ones)


Bad cops, bad cops
Bad cops, bad cops

Springfield cops are on the take
but what do you expect for the money we make

Bad cops, bad cops
Bad cops, bad cops

Whether in the car or on the bus
we don’t mind using excessive force

Bad cops, bad cops
Bad cops, bad cops

It’s a safe bet that the one on this list most likely to lose his job and end up in prison is the “good cop”.


Where does Christoper Dorner go on this list?

I was thinking “car accident”. But that doesn’t sound like a very Chris Burbank kind of thing to say or believe, so I’ll just focus on the more positive things this guy is doing. Go Chief!

Unhappily there’s insufficient information here to provide an estimate of the probability of a pet’s death by cop. But one does imagine it’s at least increasing.

Go SLC! More of that, please.

I don’t know if I agree with the sentiment that a policeman not enforcing the law is a good thing. I don’t want the police force deciding which laws are good or bad. That just breeds a contempt for the law into your constabulary. In fact, if it were an unpopular or ill thought-out law, I’d want the police to enforce it all the more diligently so that it would be more likely the electorate would kick up a fuss and fore the legislature to amend or repeal it.

I notice that, in the selected image, none of the officers have badges or any sort of ID number. Just “Sheriff.”

“”[The cops] aren’t an occupying force. We are a part of the community." "

Bingo! If you want the community to hate the cops, and escalate tensions and incidents, then treat the public like the enemy. The police are just making their own job harder.

Or maybe some of them just get off on being violent @ssh*les.

The problem is, the people who are affected by bad laws are not the ones who make the bad laws. Being unreasonable in order to demonstrate how unreasonable a law is only works if the lawmaker is paying attention.

Plus, a law that is bad may be bad on purpose. It could be working as expected. If you’re afraid that some segment of the population that traditionally votes for the opposing party is growing too quickly, one thing you can do is pass laws that make more of them criminals so they can’t vote.

Blind obedience to the law is not the solution. “I was only following orders” and “The law ties my hands on this one” are cop outs.

1 Like

In addition to what jandrese said, there’s certainly the argument to be made that not enforcing one law will result in the ability to properly police a community that’s willing to actually go to the police when there’s a problem.

As an example, if a municipal or county police department enforces federal immigration laws with zero tolerance to anyone that they make contact with, they’re likely going to either deport a whole bunch of people that were victims of fairly serious crimes while never getting to the perpetrator that commits such crimes, or never have those victims come forward, which also leads to never getting the perpetrator.

It makes more sense to investigate and pursue crimes that are covered in law at one’s local jurisdiction and to get involved with the federal aspect only once the perpetrator is identified as being illegal. Note that I don’t advocate for such reporting to necessarily wait until conviction, but I don’t see a whole lot of benefit to a community in pushing immigration status checks on those that, other than immigration itself, haven’t particularly broken the law.

And all of this without a single mention of horrific-anal-torture-rape

I wish more people cared. Almost no one does.

My opinion remains that the only thing we can do about a bad cop or prosecutor is make their home address public online and hope someone cuts their throat.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.