Even when wrong, they never admit wrong and never change.
LAPD is not disciplining an officer who killed 13-year-old Devin Brown – even though his family has been awarded 1.5 million and a civilian review board ruled the shooting violated policy.
Politics in the Zeros
"A republic, if you can keep it." Defeat MAGA
Politics in the Zeros
"A republic, if you can keep it." Defeat MAGA
The reason the city gave Devon Brown’s family $1.3 million is because they didn’t want to risk a trial before idiotic LA jurors. Can you imagine how much an OJ jury would have given the family? And if you take the time to actually look at the evidence, you’ll see that the officer did nothing wrong – that he followed LAPD policy. And if you want to complain, you might start at Mayor V’s police commissioners, who created the policies that Officer Garcia followed.
LA regularly settles cases to get rid of them. The LAPD has been under exclusive control of liberals since I joined in 1980… I arrived to help fix the problems I’d heard about, only to discover that all of LAPD’s problems stem from policies created by the dysfunctional liberals who oversee the Department. Get the liberals out of the LAPD, send the East Coast chiefs back to Boston and NYC, and leave real police work to real cops.
“Even when wrong, they never admit wrong and never change… LAPD is not disciplining an officer who killed 13-year-old Devin Brown – even though his family has been awarded 1.5 million and a civilian review board ruled the shooting violated policy.
You are never going to have a police force apologize for what it has done, right or wrong. To apologize is to recognize fault. And, we all know the police believe they are never at fault. I sometimes think they believe the laws are not made for the police so they don’t have to follow them.
IMO, an officer sworn to uphold the law who violates a citizen’s fundamental civil rights has violated the Constitution and should be charged with treason. Maybe THAT would get someone’s attention.
“Who will police the police?”
To respond to Bob, why, the Latin custodians of course! (The source of the Latin phrase I cannot recall, alas.)
For DJ, it’s hard to see how violating constitutional rights is treason under the constitutional definition of adhering to the enemies of US and giving them support, or levying war on the United States or one of them. A violation of constitutional rights of the order prescribed is and should be a crime, but I wouldn’t want it to be treason. The Republicans are reckless enough with patriotism; it’s alarming to think what they would do if they had a loose definition of treason…..
Actually I think the definition of “levying war against the United States” has been stretched so far since 9/11 that if an officer sworn to uphold the Constitution instead wantonly violates (i.e. attacks) the Constitution, that would fall neatly into the newly-broadened definition. Of course, that might land certain members of the executive branch in hot water for their unconstitutional actions as well (where, as far as I’m concerned, they belong).
My point is, the broadening has already been done. But up ’til now, employees of the government and elected officials have been held to a lower standard.