What do we know about the LAPD police force?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Well one is I am glad I don't live anywhere near them, and they are understaffed for the city, and area they are in. The gun ownership excuse is insane as they have bullet proof vest, and the most crimes are by handguns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Los_Angeles_Police_Department

http://www.lapdonline.org/history_of_the_lapd

From the evidence presented in this thread i think Blab is right.

The statement i think summarises it best is:

"The LAPD have been the organisation that has in the past contained some pretty awful example of corruption, manifesting themselves in a VERY brutal and horrific way. The LAPD as an organisation cannot be called totally corrupt since thats a blatent sweeping generalization. However its fair to say that what corruption it DOES have seems to see the light of day and in violent ways"

Blab is continuously asking for evidence the entire force is corrupt or at least a majority. Please keep linking single cases of one or two officers. This isnt enough. That HAS demonstrated well that corruption DOES exist and that it is awful where it is found. It has NOT demonstrated that the demonising of 12000 people is a legitimate stance.

Blablahb:

Shadowstar38:
So basically, I'm not allowed to be appalled when trained officers misuse their firearms unless I support a gun ban. That's quite unrealistic

Oh, you can be apalled, it just would be strange to pretend it was unwanted or someone would want that to not happen. Not after they first supported the stages for it happening to be said by supporting gun ownership.

That would be like throwing a brick at a window, and then 'being apalled' when a window is broken.

Shadowstar38:
That's not a problem with the second amendment, or "gun culture". It's an issue of ineptitude on the LA police force.

So you're saying that if police officers never had to be in situations where they could be killed in a split second, and never have to chase after loonies that are armed to the teeth, they'd still shoot people at the same rate, because gun ownership plays no role?

Sounds strange, but I can't wait to see you prove that. Maybe you can compare per capita fatal unjustified police shootings with a country that has a gun ban. I know that all records for the Netherlands are available online for one thing.

I for responsible people owning firearms.

I am against people using said firearms irresponsibly.

For mind, for whatever reason, see's this as a contradiction. But it's completely logical. To say that people who don't want to ban guns are in favor of violent murders is an uneducated and downright idiotic view.

Also, you'd like to see me prove something you pulled out of my words with mental gymnastics? Nice try, but no. Try proving banning guns won't get officers shot up by the criminals that still have them. Then we'll talk.

BiscuitTrouser:
From the evidence presented in this thread i think Blab is right.

The statement i think summarises it best is:

"The LAPD have been the organisation that has in the past contained some pretty awful example of corruption, manifesting themselves in a VERY brutal and horrific way. The LAPD as an organisation cannot be called totally corrupt since thats a blatent sweeping generalization. However its fair to say that what corruption it DOES have seems to see the light of day and in violent ways"

Blab is continuously asking for evidence the entire force is corrupt or at least a majority. Please keep linking single cases of one or two officers. This isnt enough. That HAS demonstrated well that corruption DOES exist and that it is awful where it is found. It has NOT demonstrated that the demonising of 12000 people is a legitimate stance.

People are missing the point that nobody can really prove their claims that the LAPD is "mostly" corrupt. They instead dismiss his point and pretend he never said it because it's easier to go after his hard line views on firearms. Which is now what people are arguing about.

Shadowstar38:
Also, you'd like to see me prove something you pulled out of my words with mental gymnastics? Nice try, but no. Try proving banning guns won't get officers shot up by the criminals that still have them. Then we'll talk.

Why would I need to do that? A firearms ban will disarm criminals. That's been proven in any country that instated them. Opposed to that are just some NRA lies being repeated, and none of those have ever even been partially proven.

Would be interesting to see if you'd admit that, be the first to actually argue the point, or just cry 'crims will always have guns!1' without bothering to even argue it. You could certainly elevate the level of gun lobby argumentation if you tried the second option. It doesn't have much to do with this discussion though, it belongs in one of the many gun control topics.

One thing is certain though: If US policemen didn't have to dealt with so much firearms violence because guns were banned, there wouldn't be nearly as many police shootings, justified or otherwise.

Friendly Lich:
What do you know about the LAPD?

I know that in the future, they're going to have cool robots 'n' shit:

image

Interesting thing the LAPD. Former Chief Daryl Gates (who was in charge during the Rodney King beating) actually invented the term S.W.A.T., which we all (should) know stands for Special Weapons And Tactics. Unfortunately, back when the term was first coined it stood for Special Weapons Attack Teams. That's a big difference right there.

I no longer live in California, but I imagine the cops don't exactly have it easy over there. Sure, there's bound to be corruption, what with all the gangs and drugs, but I would expect much the same from any major metropolitan police force. That's not to say I'm exactly happy about that.

Things really changed after the North Hollywood Shootout though. Southern California was already the bank robbery/car chase capital of the world. Then in 1997, things...escalated.

I won't post the video here. There's tons of footage on YouTube about the shootout. Two men wearing body armor, armed with assault rifles, pin down probably over 100 cops.

I don't think it's really the entire police's fault for their bad reputation. They are policing an area infested with gangs armed, all drugged up, and straight from Mexico, where the police wear masks instead of criminals. If I were LAPD, I'd crap my pants every other day and sweat bullets knowing this. But this shouldn't excuse them from what a number of their officers have done. They have literally shot first and asked questions later. This has resulted in many law abiding citizens dead and wounded. I believe that they have a really bad reputation and those who are responsible for this should be punished. I'm not claiming to be an end all know all on this topic. I'm just going on what I know currently about LAPD in the last 30 years. If you have some facts that I missed please let me know.

Friendly Lich:
Where does their bad reputation come from and what might drive that former police officer to go rogue against them?

What do you know about the LAPD?

A) the king riots in the early 90s, it still stains the LAPD's image and its relations with blacks. In the riots, the police just retreated. They couldn't handle the riots, and people resorted to guns to protect themselves.

B) Operation big spender, another scandal a year after the king Riots.

C) The Rampart scandal in the late 90s and early 2000s, another corruption scandal. A scandal so big we are unsure how far it spread even today. It also stains the relations with Hispanics, because CRASH officers tended to terrorize Hispanic neighborhoods. The scandal also released criminals, both innocent and guilty, into the world because arrests made by the division were considered "tampered." When an entire division releases a torrent of convicts into the open world, it tends to leave a lasting impression.

D) Then you have the recent LAPD violence incidents of 2012, younger cadets with less training lacked the knowledge of what is deemed acceptable force. It reopened the debate over how well the LAPD trains its officers.

D) The LAPD shooting at innocents in a man hunt of one man. Another stain on their reputation.

E) and lets not forget the 2007 Mcarthur park incident, where the LAPD officers turned a peaceful protest dispersal into a cluster fuck that cost the city 13 million dollars in legal settlements. Another stain for the relations to the Hispanic population because it the LAPD JUST SO HAPPENED to pick a Hispanic demonstration on immigration reform into a very public police brutality case where the LAPD even brutalized journalists and children. There was even a rumored recording of police officers betting on how many mexicans they can beat.

Sources:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/05/local/me-lapd-settlement5
http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/rampart-scandal
http://gawker.com/5982476/lapd-shooting-innocents-in-incompetent-manhunt-for-killer-cop
http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/operation-big-spender
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/aggressive_lapd_clique_of_tattooed_yXoMg5SogADs9LZBxDCMlN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/24/in-los-angeles-questions-of-police-brutality-dog-lapd.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/14/local/la-me-burbank-police14-2010mar14
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/lapd-will-investigate-violent-incidents-caught-on-tape.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0104-lapd-women-20130104,0,2291319.story

All very public, all very bad for LAPD's relations to every non white person in LA and its county. Which is the majority.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked