"RUEZ" said Man, it just goes on and on - seems to be quite a few rotten apples in that barrel.
His actions don't reflect on his employer. Just the same as we don't hold all crazy people responsible when you do something bad. When the employer colludes with the employee to try to cover up, spin, and deny deny deny, there is a problem. When an employer hires so many poor employees, there is a problem.
"andyt" said When the employer colludes with the employee to try to cover up, spin, and deny deny deny, there is a problem. When an employer hires so many poor employees, there is a problem.
Well when that happens in this case come back and we'll talk. You have no reason to make these assumptions in this case.
"RUEZ" said When the employer colludes with the employee to try to cover up, spin, and deny deny deny, there is a problem. When an employer hires so many poor employees, there is a problem.
Well when that happens in this case come back and we'll talk. You have no reason to make these assumptions in this case.
Yup, that'll work, always just say it's about "this case" and never look at the larger picture. No, it won't happen in this case because it didn't happen while on duty. Too bad for the guy, he should have found a way to kill her as part of his duties, then he'd have the whole force behind him to see him declared innocent.
Meanwhile in BC, we have the St Arnaud killer in trouble again as I mentioned, as is one of his co-workers for an on duty incident. The guy who smashed somebody's face while that person was in handcuffs made the news for another incident of violence on the job. Two RCMP arrested for drunk driving, and one of the Dziekansky boys is still in the news awaiting trial for killing a motorcyclist with his car, then running home and returning to the scene later and claiming that the booze on his breath was from 2 shots of vodka he had when he ran home. Good defense that one, all drunk drivers should use it. And all this is just in BC and all just last week.
What do you do for a living? Surely one of what ever you do has murdered somebody without turning you into a homicidal maniac? ?
Nope. But if there were killings on the job, there'd be nobody getting us together to collude in our testimony, no pr flack putting out spin that is then contradicted by video evidence and no finding of no responsibility even if forensic evidence and eye witness testimony contradicted our statements.
"EyeBrock" said So four bad cops out of 100,000. Conclusive evidence that they are all bad.
You been smoking some diggerdick weed andy?
I dont drink or do drugs of any kind EyeBrock and are probably more law bidding then 90% of your cop friends ....... but I sure know how to get under your self righteous skin
The problem with law enforcement, is of course that it is overseen by law enforcement and the 'thin blue whatever' protect their own even when they know the have criminal cops on the force.
Police need a permanent, non-law enforcement related people who have oversight to keep them in check. Which means no ex-cops, no ex-crown prosecutors, preferably civil rights lawyers
The RCMP who "murdered" Kevin St Arnaud is in trouble again for assaulting somebody while offduty. That this guy is still a cop is beyond disgusting.
Man, it just goes on and on - seems to be quite a few rotten apples in that barrel.
Man, it just goes on and on - seems to be quite a few rotten apples in that barrel.
When the employer colludes with the employee to try to cover up, spin, and deny deny deny, there is a problem. When an employer hires so many poor employees, there is a problem.
Well when that happens in this case come back and we'll talk. You have no reason to make these assumptions in this case.
When the employer colludes with the employee to try to cover up, spin, and deny deny deny, there is a problem. When an employer hires so many poor employees, there is a problem.
Well when that happens in this case come back and we'll talk. You have no reason to make these assumptions in this case.
Yup, that'll work, always just say it's about "this case" and never look at the larger picture. No, it won't happen in this case because it didn't happen while on duty. Too bad for the guy, he should have found a way to kill her as part of his duties, then he'd have the whole force behind him to see him declared innocent.
Meanwhile in BC, we have the St Arnaud killer in trouble again as I mentioned, as is one of his co-workers for an on duty incident. The guy who smashed somebody's face while that person was in handcuffs made the news for another incident of violence on the job. Two RCMP arrested for drunk driving, and one of the Dziekansky boys is still in the news awaiting trial for killing a motorcyclist with his car, then running home and returning to the scene later and claiming that the booze on his breath was from 2 shots of vodka he had when he ran home. Good defense that one, all drunk drivers should use it. And all this is just in BC and all just last week.
It just goes on and on.
You been smoking some diggerdick weed andy?
So four bad cops out of 100,000. Conclusive evidence that they are all bad.
You been smoking some diggerdick weed andy?
No, no, the 99,996 are all good, the brass is pure as the driven snow and there's nothing to worry about. You can go back to sleep now.
What do you do for a living? Surely one of what ever you do has murdered somebody without turning you into a homicidal maniac?
?
Methinks one bad apple does not always sour the barrel.
So the sky isn't falling then eh?
What do you do for a living? Surely one of what ever you do has murdered somebody without turning you into a homicidal maniac?
?
Nope. But if there were killings on the job, there'd be nobody getting us together to collude in our testimony, no pr flack putting out spin that is then contradicted by video evidence and no finding of no responsibility even if forensic evidence and eye witness testimony contradicted our statements.
What's your problem with the cops?
So four bad cops out of 100,000. Conclusive evidence that they are all bad.
You been smoking some diggerdick weed andy?
Police need a permanent, non-law enforcement related people who have oversight to keep them in check. Which means no ex-cops, no ex-crown prosecutors, preferably civil rights lawyers
You know nothing. Prove all those things are a common occurrence amongst the 100,000.
What's your problem with the cops?
His problem is that he doesn't trust law enforcement to police themselves, and he's right.