Olanov

Yeahhhh but when actions by some of our knights and saviors have caused people to be afraid of those who're supposed to help them, there's a very clear and discinct disconnect between law enforcement and the public.

Agreed, you got every right right to hold that opinion but there's a lot of people part of the system that think that way, which makes it a problem.

This is what we call a bias and it has no place in the justice system.

Except you're ready to jump the gun and literally say you're already putting the police first over anybody out of the uniform. Officer shot by someone? "Guaranteed unjustified." Someone from the police shoots another person? There's more to the story. When you're not treating that as equal, there's a problem.

When there have been numerous cases of police outright being able to falsify reports, leaving out details when it comes to screw ups, you're saying you still believe there's a greater chance they're correct? Just because someone has authority over another, doesn't necessarily mean they instantly become more credible. If an officer with a huge rap of UOS investigations, civilian complaints and the like releases a statement, you'd eat that right up cos he's a shield. You're ready to outright guarantee if a cops get shot, it's not justified. Yet what if there was that case, what if there's been a case, where someone acted in manner of self-defence on the streets, but due to the police being the only people who lived to tell the tale, them backing each other up and falsifying a statement, you'd believe that the officers were in the right because in your mind, it's already guaranteed cos they're cops.

But what you literally said was if it's a police officer that got shot, you can guarantee it wasn't justified. You're already jumping to conclusions instead of relying to "there could be more to it". If it's your average Joe out of a uniform that got shot, only then there's more to it. You're automatically saying that the police are in the right.

This is exactly what I'm taking about. You're ready to guarantee if someone shoots a cop, it wasn't justified, yet if it's a cop, we oughta slow down: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/texas-no-knock-swat-raid "Five months earlier, 100 miles away, a SWAT officer was shot during a predawn no-knock raid on another house. In that case, too, police threw a flash-bang grenade and tried to enter the residence. Henry "Hank" Magee, according to his attorney, grabbed his gun to protect himself and his pregnant girlfriend. "As soon as the door was kicked in, he shot at the people coming through the door," says his attorney, Dick DeGuerin. With his legally owned semi-automatic .308 rifle, Magee killed one of the officers." Can you guarantee that this person's act of self defense wasn't justified?

Something I've always ended up finding very curious, if not amusing in terms of LCPDFR. If it's a cop who's shot, there's calls for massive manhunts and anybody slightly involved gets thrown under the bus as potentional suspect and dirtbag. Meanwhile if there's a wrongful shooting, it's suddenly all: " whoa, hey, let's wait for the facts and calm down guys, huh?" I acknowledge I've used to be a part of this problem in the past but I've grown out of that ridiculous mentality. As a reminder, I'd like to say I don't hate cops and acknowledge we completely need them - but I'm also tired of this mentality where people immediatly jump the gun and are practically ready to clear or justify a case when it's someone shot who don't carry a shield.

And back to V we go.

Rockstar released a new GTA IV expansion! I wish.

And now for something, completely different: