Oklahoma state trooper shoots unarmed man in the back

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
There's corruption at its finest

It has nothing at all to do with corruption. You might want to peruse dictionary.com before making such a statement.

Corruption: n 1: lack of integrity or honesty

Integrity: n. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

Oh I don't know. Putting an incompetent officer on the force, and then covering for her after she kills someone doesn't seem to adhere to either the ethical and moral code I'd expect out of law enforcement officers or any sense of honesty. Nor does covering for her seem particularly honest or ethical. I'd say that word fits.

You might want to take your own advice?

Edit: I'm a few minutes late with this I see. Oh well.

It had nothing to do with corruption.

Holy double post Batman.

Anyway, it's true that it has nothing to do with corruption in the sense that we normally hear the word used. Ie. business and political scandals and the like. However, according to dictionary.com, which it seems you're fond of, her hiring and the subsequent cover-up seem to fit within the technical definition of corruption. *shrugs* Whatever though.

 

[johnjosh]

personally to me it seem like it was accidental or she was afraid that if he was running to his car were he had weapon. Regarless of what reason she shoot him she should have been fire for that. I hope the man will sue the department for everything they have and department of justice gets involved in this case.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
The shooting ("it") had nothing to do with corruption, but actions surrounding it (and by "it," I mean the shooting itself), fit the description of "lack of integrity..."

Words and their meanings are butchered these days, perhaps I am trying to use this word out of context without knowing it.

If you take a narrow sense of the word then yes, it was a lack of integrity. The whole definition of corruption, however, implies you did something for an illicit gain.

 

[IBuyUFO]

I like that officer. Jesus took that guy so long to comply with her. He was clearly drunk. Too bad that tard is still alive.

 

[johnjosh]

Originally posted by: IBuyUFO
I like that officer. Jesus took that guy so long to comply with her. He was clearly drunk. Too bad that tard is still alive.

yes he took long time to comply with her but she was using innaproprtiate language

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: johnjosh

Originally posted by: IBuyUFO
I like that officer. Jesus took that guy so long to comply with her. He was clearly drunk. Too bad that tard is still alive.

yes he took long time to comply with her but she was using innaproprtiate language

I couldn't help but notice that as well, she tore him a new asshole for saying "bullsh!t", yet she used the word fvck how many times?

Any news stories on this? Posts on other forums?

Viper GTS

 

[mundane]

Originally posted by: IBuyUFO
I like that officer. Jesus took that guy so long to comply with her. He was clearly drunk. Too bad that tard is still alive.

The idiot should get his hospital bill paid, and the officer fired. That'll set everything square

 

[TechnoKid]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
The shooting ("it") had nothing to do with corruption, but actions surrounding it (and by "it," I mean the shooting itself), fit the description of "lack of integrity..."

Words and their meanings are butchered these days, perhaps I am trying to use this word out of context without knowing it.

If you take a narrow sense of the word then yes, it was a lack of integrity. The whole definition of corruption, however, implies you did something for an illicit gain.

But words do have different and multiple meanings...sigh...

English is difficult, language (in general) is difficult to interpret

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
There's corruption at its finest

It has nothing at all to do with corruption. You might want to peruse dictionary.com before making such a statement.

Corruption: n 1: lack of integrity or honesty

Integrity: n. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

Oh I don't know. Putting an incompetent officer on the force, and then covering for her after she kills someone doesn't seem to adhere to either the ethical and moral code I'd expect out of law enforcement officers or any sense of honesty. Nor does covering for her seem particularly honest or ethical. I'd say that word fits.

You might want to take your own advice?

Edit: I'm a few minutes late with this I see. Oh well.

It had nothing to do with corruption.

Holy double post Batman.

Anyway, it's true that it has nothing to do with corruption in the sense that we normally hear the word used. Ie. business and political scandals and the like. However, according to dictionary.com, which it seems you're fond of, her hiring and the subsequent cover-up seem to fit within the technical definition of corruption. *shrugs* Whatever though.

Seriously. Fusetalk vomited on that post. Anyway both of you took just one part of the definition and not the whole breadth of the word. No use arguing semantics, because when it comes to corruption and the police or any authority, it requires abuse of authority to gain something. She didn't gain a thing.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: johnjosh

Originally posted by: IBuyUFO
I like that officer. Jesus took that guy so long to comply with her. He was clearly drunk. Too bad that tard is still alive.

yes he took long time to comply with her but she was using innaproprtiate language

I couldn't help but notice that as well, she tore him a new asshole for saying "bullsh!t", yet she used the word fvck how many times?

Any news stories on this? Posts on other forums?

Viper GTS

Go to officer.com and read their forums under Ask a cop.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
There's corruption at its finest

It has nothing at all to do with corruption. You might want to peruse dictionary.com before making such a statement.

Corruption: n 1: lack of integrity or honesty

Integrity: n. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

Oh I don't know. Putting an incompetent officer on the force, and then covering for her after she kills someone doesn't seem to adhere to either the ethical and moral code I'd expect out of law enforcement officers or any sense of honesty. Nor does covering for her seem particularly honest or ethical. I'd say that word fits.

You might want to take your own advice?

Edit: I'm a few minutes late with this I see. Oh well.

It had nothing to do with corruption. There has to be an outside influence or GAIN for it to be corruption. It's not just the loss of integrity. It has to be due to an outside force that compels someone(via gain) to do an act. How did she gain anything? Part of a definition is not the WHOLE meaning of the word.

*sigh* Couldn't you have just posted this inside that uber double post instead of making me respond to two almost identical posts?

Anyway, you said that part of a definition is not the whole meaning which is true. I notice you didn't bother to post the whole definition though. I'll do that.

n 1: lack of integrity or honesty; esp susceptibility to bribery; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain

Now, you said there HAS to be an outside influence or GAIN. I don't see where it says that here. It says "especially susceptibility to bribery" but it does not seem to say that is a key component. A very likely one of course but, according to the definition, essential

Edit: I also should say that I wasn't saying that she was corrupt but rather whoever pushed her through the program and also whoever is covering up for her and sheltering her from, at very least, the firing she deserves.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: TechnoKid

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
The shooting ("it") had nothing to do with corruption, but actions surrounding it (and by "it," I mean the shooting itself), fit the description of "lack of integrity..."

Words and their meanings are butchered these days, perhaps I am trying to use this word out of context without knowing it.

If you take a narrow sense of the word then yes, it was a lack of integrity. The whole definition of corruption, however, implies you did something for an illicit gain.

But words do have different and multiple meanings...sigh...

English is difficult, language (in general) is difficult to interpret

But you weren't using it to imply she did something wrong. Most people say bad police action is corruption, but corruption implies doing an illicit act for a gain. Playing semantics on this is nuts. You meant corruption as it relates to the police. You said nothing about her integrity until later. I also wouldn't say what she did shows a lack of integrity. You have to integrity to beging with to lose it.

 

[Siddhartha]

Race is not the issue here. She should treated like any other cop in this situation.

Okay let me say this again before the "BET is racist" guys hit this thread: Race is not the issue here.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
There's corruption at its finest

It has nothing at all to do with corruption. You might want to peruse dictionary.com before making such a statement.

Corruption: n 1: lack of integrity or honesty

Integrity: n. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

Oh I don't know. Putting an incompetent officer on the force, and then covering for her after she kills someone doesn't seem to adhere to either the ethical and moral code I'd expect out of law enforcement officers or any sense of honesty. Nor does covering for her seem particularly honest or ethical. I'd say that word fits.

You might want to take your own advice?

Edit: I'm a few minutes late with this I see. Oh well.

It had nothing to do with corruption. There has to be an outside influence or GAIN for it to be corruption. It's not just the loss of integrity. It has to be due to an outside force that compels someone(via gain) to do an act. How did she gain anything? Part of a definition is not the WHOLE meaning of the word.

*sigh* Couldn't you have just posted this inside that uber double post instead of making me respond to two almost identical posts?

Anyway, you said that part of a definition is not the whole meaning which is true. I notice you didn't bother to post the whole definition though. I'll do that.

n 1: lack of integrity or honesty; esp susceptibility to bribery; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain

Now, you said there HAS to be an outside influence or GAIN. I don't see where it says that here. It says "especially susceptibility to bribery" but it does not seem to say that is a key component. A very likely one of course but, according to the definition, essential

1 a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : DEPRAVITY b : DECAY, DECOMPOSITION c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery) d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct
2 archaic : an agency or influence that corrupts
3 chiefly dialect : PUS

What sense was he using the word in? He was talking about the police. She didn't impair her sense of integrity, morality, or virture because it was reported that she never had any. This was the norm of her behavior. If it was another police officer with a clean record then you have a point. Regardless when someone says corruption and is talking about the police, they usually mean someone who is on the take. That's the sense of what he said. Who says corruption when talking about the police unless referring to them doing something illegal for gain? No one. If you wanted to talk about what she did based on morality... it would be more of a breach of the ethics of a cop.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Race is not the issue here. She should treated like any other cop in this situation.

Okay let me say this again before the "BET is racist" guys hit this thread: Race is not the issue here.

So you contradict the reports from her peers that she was hired on due to AA? So you care calling them liars?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Race is not the issue here. She should treated like any other cop in this situation.

Okay let me say this again before the "BET is racist" guys hit this thread: Race is not the issue here.

So you contradict the reports from her peers that she was hired on due to AA? So you care calling them liars?

I was trying to focus on what the important issues are in this situation. If it is your agenda to indict affirmative action with this incident and this cop go ahead.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: TechnoKid
There's corruption at its finest

It has nothing at all to do with corruption. You might want to peruse dictionary.com before making such a statement.

Corruption: n 1: lack of integrity or honesty

Integrity: n. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

Oh I don't know. Putting an incompetent officer on the force, and then covering for her after she kills someone doesn't seem to adhere to either the ethical and moral code I'd expect out of law enforcement officers or any sense of honesty. Nor does covering for her seem particularly honest or ethical. I'd say that word fits.

You might want to take your own advice?

Edit: I'm a few minutes late with this I see. Oh well.

It had nothing to do with corruption. There has to be an outside influence or GAIN for it to be corruption. It's not just the loss of integrity. It has to be due to an outside force that compels someone(via gain) to do an act. How did she gain anything? Part of a definition is not the WHOLE meaning of the word.

*sigh* Couldn't you have just posted this inside that uber double post instead of making me respond to two almost identical posts?

Anyway, you said that part of a definition is not the whole meaning which is true. I notice you didn't bother to post the whole definition though. I'll do that.

n 1: lack of integrity or honesty; esp susceptibility to bribery; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain

Now, you said there HAS to be an outside influence or GAIN. I don't see where it says that here. It says "especially susceptibility to bribery" but it does not seem to say that is a key component. A very likely one of course but, according to the definition, essential

1 a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : DEPRAVITY b : DECAY, DECOMPOSITION c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery) d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct
2 archaic : an agency or influence that corrupts
3 chiefly dialect : PUS

What sense was he using the word in? He was talking about the police. She didn't impair her sense of integrity, morality, or virture because it was reported that she never had any. This was the norm of her behavior. If it was another police officer with a clean record then you have a point. Regardless when someone says corruption and is talking about the police, they usually mean someone who is on the take. That's the sense of what he said. Who says corruption when talking about the police unless referring to them doing something illegal for gain? No one. If you wanted to talk about what she did based on morality... it would be more of a breach of the ethics of a cop.

Eh, we're looking at two different definitions here. I can't find the part you have bolded in the dictionary.com definition. *shrugs* Neither of us is going to convince the other anyway

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Race is not the issue here. She should treated like any other cop in this situation.

Kay let me say this again before the "BET is racist" guys hit this thread: Race is not the issue here.

So you contradict the reports from her peers that she was hired on due to AA? So you care calling them liars?

I was trying to focus on what the important issues are in this situation. If it is your agenda to indict affirmative action with this incident and this cop go ahead.

How did AA not fail in this situation? It put a police officer on the job that didn't meet the standards and had a very bad behavior report. They tried to out her, but they had AA policies to follow and couldn't do so. Don't you think that AA failed in this case? Because of AA she was allowed on the job when she was unfit and someone got shot. We're lucky she didn't shoot him again, because God knows she acted like she wanted to. And I'm not the one who indicted AA. Her actions and the actions of her department did. Their is corroboration from colleagues that says what I am saying is the truth.

 

[5ayle]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Race is not the issue here. She should treated like any other cop in this situation.

Okay let me say this again before the "BET is racist" guys hit this thread: Race is not the issue here.

So you contradict the reports from her peers that she was hired on due to AA? So you care calling them liars?

I was trying to focus on what the important issues are in this situation. If it is your agenda to indict affirmative action with this incident and this cop go ahead.

Clearly there are two seperate issues here: the shooting done by the officer and the hiring of the officer. You guys are getting the two mixed together. Each issue is different w/ different ppl who are accountable and different consequences.

-The cop did shot the kid and deserves her punishment.

-The ppl who hired here were the one that were corrupted(negatively influence... whatever) by the quota they had fill ( i guess not to many blk ppl in OKHP ) and they are to pay for not only hiring such a menace but also giving her a free pass and then some.



I'm actually against AA but I don't this case has any merit to put down AA. The fault was not AA itself the but official who broke several rules to meet the requirements of one rule.

 

[5ayle]

BTW, article about her job.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: 5ayle

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Race is not the issue here. She should treated like any other cop in this situation.

Okay let me say this again before the "BET is racist" guys hit this thread: Race is not the issue here.

So you contradict the reports from her peers that she was hired on due to AA? So you care calling them liars?

I was trying to focus on what the important issues are in this situation. If it is your agenda to indict affirmative action with this incident and this cop go ahead.

Clearly there are two seperate issues here: the shooting done by the officer and the hiring of the officer. You guys are getting the two mixed together. Each issue is different w/ different ppl who are accountable and different consequences.

-The cop did shot the kid and deserves her punishment.

-The ppl who hired here were the one that were corrupted(negatively influence... whatever) by the quota they had fill ( i guess not to many blk ppl in OKHP ) and they are to pay for not only hiring such a menace but also giving her a free pass and then some.



I'm actually against AA but I don't this case has any merit to put down AA. The fault was not AA itself the but official who broke several rules to meet the requirements of one rule.

Heh nice logic. Would the official have broken the rule if AA didn't exist? I don't think so. Would the official have felt pressured to look the other way if AA didn't exist? I don't think so. Would this lady have passed the Academy without AA? Again, I don't think so. Would this man have been shot if the officer that pulled him over had actually PASSED proper training. Once again, I don't think so. The people who hired her are partly responsible for the shooting. They passed her when she shouldn't have been passed, they ignored the terrible FTO reports and reviews she received, and they allowed her to break the rules to stay in the Academy. She is equally responsible for taking a job she wasn't qualified to do, and for also allowing her self to be used as a pawn of the system. Also she pulled the trigger and that is what caused the shooting. Every single one of those things is the result of AA being used to boost numbers, yet it doesn't do a damn thing for the quality of the officers out there.

It wasn't because she was Black that she did what she did, but it was because of AA that she was allowed to do what she did.

The issue is not her skin color or gender. The issue is why AA is used when it turns out subpar officers.

 

[Gravity]

Wont use rm player or the alternative. Situation, as I can understand it is difficult. It's a low paying field with high stakes. We ask people to protect us using guns and other weaponry but ironically, we have a low tolerance for their failure or lack of intelligence.

It's a classical dilema. AS long as we offer LLAMA pay, we'll have llamas in uniform.

 

[5ayle]

Here's the rundown for no RM ppl

-Cop follows truck and yells over the PA "Pullover Now!, Right NOW!"
-She yells it again as she finally hits the siren.
-When they are stopped she immediatly tell the driver to get out of the truck (she didn't walk up to the car).
-"Get out the car now!","What the fvck is wrong with you?"
-"You been drinking? Don't fvsking lie to me!"
-"Wait a minute from Norman[guy's town] don't mean sh!t."
-"Are you smoking? Are you on something? Fvcking crazy? git your license out"

OMFG!!!! I can't watch anymore for the second time it's pissing me off so much!!!!!!

Anyhow, all the quotes are within the first minute of the stop. Then later on, she tries to cuff but he resists, passively (whereas active would be fighting). While this is going she's all like "I'll shoot you!." He finally staggers to his car when fires one round then jumps on yelling "I'll shoot you again, I'll shoot you again!"

WTF, happened to mace, tazers, backup, some damn common sense. Why the hell is this goddamn piece sh!t on the damn streets!!!!

Ok i'm done.

EDIT: arrgghh!

 

[cubanx]

Pay has nothing to do with incompetence.

 

[Shockwave]

Now thats funny. Truly. Maybe others think its wrong, and I dont wanna get in a big argument, but I think its perfect. Maybe if they play it on TV it'll keep dillweeds from being...Well, dillweeds, and just do twhat the person with the badge and gun says.

In *MY* (And note the MY) opinion, if you dont dot your I's and cross your T's with the "nice" officer they have every right to use deadly force. She told him repeatedly to put his hands behind his back. He doesnt, he resists, he fights her then tries to run off. Deserved to get shot IMO.