lol drk star relax man, you don't have to defend every cop.
take a break.
Printable View
lol drk star relax man, you don't have to defend every cop.
take a break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SysOp
did I say I was defending EVERY cop. Some are dicks. They need to be removed. Find them and prosecute them. BUT, dont punish the cops that are doing their jobs.
and Im capitalizing words to give them emphasis. Its not a tilt rant. Im trying to give a very detailed explanation of the shit show that is going on.
no one cares....but its headed your way. Baltimore and Chicago are the first to go. The States attorney down in Baltimore is fucking up that trial right now. She is in over her head.
Just adding this here, rather than bumping this thread again:
Current stats for past few years, for the first week of the year in Chicago:
Jan 1-7, 2016:
Shot & Killed: 12
Shot & Wounded: 66
Total Shot: 78
Total Homicides: 12
Jan 1-7, 2015:
Shot & Killed: 5
Shot & Wounded: 33
Total Shot: 38
Total Homicides: 7
Jan 1-7, 2014*:
Shot & Killed: 2
Shot & Wounded: 16
Total Shot: 18
Total Homicides: 3
* Polar Vortex & 4 were shot and wounded by CPD on New Year's Day
Gallo just whipped up some good stuff the other day. Barbacoa, with scrambled eggs, jalepeno and I think onion. Puede cocinar.
DRK Star is god and the Luther Mississippi of this forum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZeE9ULax-4
just going to leave this here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBB7DolmQPY
bonus... enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FDlcwU-uZs
Emanuel seeks OK for $3 billion in new borrowing
WRITTEN BY FRAN SPIELMAN POSTED: 01/07/2016, 05:25PM
Mayor Rahm Emanuel is asking the City Council to approve $3 billion in new borrowing, by far the biggest of his tenure.
Seven months ago, aldermen reluctantly agreed to authorize a $1.1 billion borrowing after being told the city’s junk bond rating demanded it. The money was used to continue Emanuel’s debt restructuring plan and move away from risky financial practices that former Mayor Richard M. Daley used to “mask” the true cost of city government.
On Monday, the Finance Committee will be asked to approve a kitchen sink borrowing that’s nearly triple that size. It includes:
$1.25 billion in general-obligation bonds backed by property taxes. The money includes $700 million to bankroll the city’s annual capital program for 2016 and 2017. G.O. bonds will also be used to eliminate the costly practice of “scoop-and-toss” borrowing, with those restructurings totaling $123 million this year, $139 million next year and $73 million in 2018.
$900 million in Midway Airport bonds to refund existing debt, restructure bonds used to build a rental car facility and to bankroll Emanuel’s $248 million plan to confront the Southwest Side airport’s biggest weaknesses and passenger annoyances: parking, security and concessions.
$700 million in water revenue bonds that, chief financial officer Carole Brown said, mark the “last variable rate conversion” involved in terminating complex deals known as swap contracts dating back to Daley’s tenure. When its bond rating fell below investment grade, Chicago could have faced paying billions to bankers under terms of those complex deals.
$200 million in sales tax revenue bonds that includes $75 million for the treasured menu program that allocates $1.32 million yearly to each of the city’s 50 wards to spend on infrastructure repairs of the local alderman’s choosing.
It’s the first time that the menu program has not been financed by property taxes, and it could be part of a trend.
“Sales tax bonds are higher-rated that G.O. bonds. It would be cheaper to fund it using the sales tax,” Brown said. “I want to see what the benefit really is and whether that should be part of the city’s long-term strategy to try and fund capital from sources other than the property tax to preserve our levy and improve our rating. We have a lot of debt on the property tax. I’d like to diversify our portfolio.”
Emanuel argued Thursday that the massive borrowing is tailor-made to execute the plan he outlined to the Civic Federation after the election.
“It’s actually what the rating agencies wanted to see us do — to strengthen Chicago’s finances rather than leaving it vulnerable,” the mayor said.
“It’s following through on a commitment. The worst thing you could do is make a pledge, then not do it.”
Ald. John Arena (45th) questioned Emanuel’s kitchen sink approach at a time when the city’s debt rating has already cost Chicago taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in added borrowing costs.
“We passed a budget that said there was a schedule we were going to do this on, and now we’re accelerating that schedule and front-loading everything,” Arena said.
“The bond rating agencies still have us at junk status, and yet we’re issuing an excessive amount of debt. I want to let the market reset. We’ve made moves to increase our bond rating. We passed a huge property tax increase for police and fire pensions. We ought to let that sink into the market and get our bond rating up a little bit.”
Ald. Scott Waguespack (32nd) was equally skeptical.
“They’re bundling together so much of this when they don’t need to. They want upfront authority to have all of this done now so [they] can put it out on the market at their convenience,” Waguespack said.
Waguespack questioned why Midway bonds total $900 million when the improvements outlined by Emanuel carried a price tag less than one-third that size.
“There’s no plan other than, ‘Please give us a blank check.’ It’s not transparent, and it’s not even planning as we should be doing,” he said.
Civic Federation President Laurence Msall questioned whether the record borrowing is “the most efficient structure” for Chicago taxpayers.
“A $3 billion bond program is the largest the city has ever offered, and it’s coming at a time when the city’s credit rating is at an all-time worst since the Chicago fire,” Msall said.
“The key question is, what other alternative has the city considered rather than offering such a large amount of debt at a time when its credit rating is at a historic low? It’s understandable that the city wants to get out from under variable rate debt and scoop and toss. But this is a change from the plan the mayor outlined” in April.
Msall has been urging the mayor for years to get rid of the aldermanic menu program. He was disappointed when the mayor chose the political path of least resistance.
“Moving from the property tax to the sales tax for the menu program doesn’t make it more affordable, nor does it make it [a] good use of limited tax dollars,” he said.
“The entire capital spending program should be based on prioritizing the highest and best needs of the city — not projects to be named later by aldermen using their own criteria.”
Over the years, aldermen have been harshly criticized for signing off on massive borrowings without asking tough questions. That’s likely to change now that Emanuel has been wounded politically by his handling of the Laquan McDonald shooting video.
http://www.theonion.com/article/chic...view:1:Default
Chicago Police Department To Monitor All Interactions With Public Using New Bullet Cams
CHICAGO—In response to calls for increased transparency and accountability, the Chicago Police Department announced Friday that it will begin monitoring all interactions with the public by using new bullet cams. “To ensure that all contact between law enforcement officers and residents is properly documented, five megapixel, high-definition cameras will be affixed to our standard-grade 9mm Luger caliber ammunition,” said Chicago Police Department Interim Superintendent John Escalante, adding that the bullet cams will capture the majority of public interactions and store them in a database. “We’ve invested heavily to modernize our police force and hope that the initiative will eliminate any misunderstandings between citizens and law enforcement.” When asked whether the public would have access to the footage, a Chicago police spokesperson had no comment.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/us/laq...p-allegations/Quote:
Attorneys: Chicago cops falsified witnesses' accounts, threatened them
Chicago (CNN)At least three witnesses to the Laquan McDonald police killing were questioned for hours, threatened by officers and ordered to change their accounts to match the official Chicago police version of the shooting, the attorneys for the teen's estate say.
The allegations are contained in more than 3,000 pages of recently released documents related to the case. The attorneys also allege that police officers up the chain of command fabricated witness accounts to support the way officers at the scene described the October 20, 2014, shooting as justified.
"It's not just the officers on the street," attorney Jeffrey Neslund told CNN. "It's a lieutenant, a sergeant and detectives -- and the lengths they went to justify what simply was not true."
CNN contacted Neslund and Michael Robbins after the city released the documents to the news media in response to multiple Freedom of Information Act requests.
Asked if they stood by the accusations they made in letters to the city's corporation counsel last March, Robbins said, "Absolutely."
"You have a false narrative put out by police," he said, "outright lies to cover up an illegal shooting, corroborated by other officers."
CNN asked the Chicago Police Department for a reaction to the allegations. "This is the first time I'm hearing of that allegation," spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said. "But this is why we want an independent investigation to look at every fact. But unfortunately, we're not able to comment on any specific incident."
CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson said the allegations made by Neslund and Robbins are a significant development.
"In the event that it's true, you have multiple underlying charges: intimidating witnesses, falsifying public records and you have a conspiracy that more than one person was involved," Jackson said. "This has the potential of taking down a lot of people in that police department."
"The issue then becomes how high of a level does this go: Who knew about this?"
Mayor Rahm Emanuel's office declined to make the mayor available for an interview but issued the following statement to CNN regarding these allegations:
"The police actions surrounding this shooting are under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for possible criminal charges, and by the city's Inspector General for possible disciplinary action. The public deserves answers to a number of important questions in this case, and we eagerly await the findings of those investigations."
Police Officer Jason Van Dyke, 37, was charged with first-degree murder in late November in the killing of McDonald, 17. The officer pleaded not guilty in December and is free on bail. His attorney has said he feared for his life before he opened fire, shooting the teen 16 times.
At least five officers at the scene, including Van Dyke's partner, backed up his account that McDonald lunged at him. "When McDonald got to within 12 to 15 feet of the officers, he swung the knife toward the officers in an aggressive manner," Van Dyke's partner said in an official police report.
But a police dashcam video shows McDonald walking down South Pulaski Road with a knife in his hand, heading away from officers. The city fought the video's release for 13 months. Van Dyke was charged just hours before it was made public.
Attorneys: Witness said an officer was 'going to get me'
Attorneys Robbins and Neslund were seeking a settlement with the city on behalf of McDonald's family when they requested witnesses' statements to police. They personally interviewed three witnesses. They found that the accounts police provided did not match what witnesses told the lawyers.
These were the accounts the lawyers say witnesses gave to them:
A motorist and his son who witnessed the shooting said a uniformed officer told the man "to get out of there immediately, to drive off or be arrested," Robbins told CNN.
"This is somebody who is an occurrence witness to a fatal shooting," Robbins said. "Nobody asked him, 'What did you see?' "
Another witness, a truck driver who was at a nearby Burger King, told the attorneys that he and two other witnesses, a woman and her friend who both saw the shooting, were put in police cars, taken to a station and interviewed for hours in separate rooms.
"He kept describing it and he said the police were visibly angry with him and arguing with him about what happened, saying, 'That's not what happened,' " Robbins said. "He'd say, 'Well, that's what I saw.' They said, 'No, you're wrong.' "
At one point, the trucker told police he needed to get back to work for a 6 a.m. shift, according to Robbins. "The police said, 'We don't give a f--- about your truck. Let's go through this again,' " Robbins said.
In their letters to the city, the lawyers describe the account of the woman taken to the same station with the truck driver. They did not interview her but say she spoke to McDonald's family and told them the teen was "trying to run away from (police)," Neslund wrote.
The woman, Neslund alleged, was so appalled when shots rang out that she yelled at Van Dyke: "Stop shooting."
"There's a reason they kept us there 'til 4 a.m.," the woman told McDonald's family, according to Neslund. "One officer said he was going to get me."
When the witnesses refused to change their statements, Robbins wrote, "the investigating officers simply fabricated civilian accounts in the reports."
The woman, her friend and the truck driver were released after about six hours of questioning when one of them asked for an attorney, Robbins said.
The threats and intimidation of the female witness, Neslund alleged, continued in the days after she first spoke with police.
'We were told there were no witness statements'
In response to the attorneys' requests for witness statements, the city allowed them to examine summaries of witness accounts. Those summaries said five people in the vicinity of the shooting were interviewed by police, but none of them saw the shooting. Two said they "did not see or hear anything," according to the official police records. Another witness summary said a third person heard gunshots and then saw McDonald was "lying in the street." The two others said they saw McDonald being chased by police, but did not see the shooting, according to the official police version.
The names of people interviewed by police are redacted in the publicly released documents. One of the redacted names is listed as a "self-employed truck driver."
Neslund and Robbins confirmed that the trucker they interviewed is the person in those redacted documents. When the attorneys first approached him and told him the police records say he didn't see the shooting, he told them that was not true.
"The truck driver says he did tell police, that it was like an execution," Robbins said. "What he described was what we saw in the video."
CNN asked the attorneys to put the network in touch with the witnesses for interviews. They declined.
The Police Department's witness summaries were submitted into the record on March 15, 2015, nine days after the attorneys sought information and nearly five months after the shooting. The document was signed off and approved by a Chicago police lieutenant.
"We saw these (summaries) by the three witnesses who were interviewed at the station -- that police say they didn't see anything. We said, 'Where's the witness statements?' We were told there were no witness statements," Robbins said.
""Significantly in our view," Robbins said, "of these three witnesses -- the truck driver, the woman and her companion -- none of them were asked to sign a statement."
A federal grand jury has been investigating the shooting for months, including looking into possible obstruction of justice charges by police officers. Neslund and Robbins, who both were once Cook County prosecutors, said it is their understanding the truck driver has testified before the grand jury.
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois declined to comment about specifics related to the grand jury. The office would say only that a joint federal and state investigation into the shooting continues and that authorities are "conducting a thorough investigation into the circumstances of the shooting."
"We won't be saying anything in addition to that," said Joseph Fitzpatrick, an assistant U.S. attorney.
Other officers still working
As of now, no other officer connected to the McDonald case has faced any charges, and they remain on their beats.
The Chicago Police Department has said it is awaiting the conclusion of the Justice Department inquiry and other investigations, but will take swift action if "any officer participated in any wrongdoing."
Corporation counsel of the city of Chicago Stephen Patton and his deputy, Thomas Platt, have yet to respond to a CNN request about whether they took any steps to investigate the allegations raised by the estate attorneys.
Neslund and Robbins first met with Patton and Platt in March on the settlement negotiations.
The estate originally sought $16 million, $1 million for every bullet that struck McDonald. A settlement of $5 million was reached in April.
In a demand letter dated March 6 and written after he'd seen the dashcam video, Neslund said:
"This case will undoubtedly bring a microscope of national attention to the shooting itself as well as the city's pattern, practice and procedures in rubber-stamping fatal police shootings of African-Americans as 'justified.' "
"I submit this particular shooting can be fairly characterized as a gratuitous execution ... as well as a hate crime."
The case stayed largely out of the spotlight until a judge in November ordered the video be made public. Just as Neslund had predicted, it shocked the city and nation.
Here is a response from the CPD, to those amazing "eyewitness" accounts in the article
"excuse me ma'am, my name is Officer Smith. Can you tell me what you saw this evening?"
YEAH....I saw dis dude...and he was walking all crip like, like he was doin that Hotline Bling dance, nowhamsayin?.....den dat Cop just straight up kilt him. Just put like 100 shots in em"
"Thank you ma'am...you have a nice day"
Aint you gonna have me sign somethin?
<drives off in cop car>
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
First, you have stated in this thread several times that we should believe you, because of some sort of insider information that you have, which I'm sure if it even exists was provided by someone in law enforcement. I should believe you over eye witness accounts?
Second, I agree that the witness statements could be biased, but you see no issue with the fact that clearly they have a different statement than what the cops reported. They held them for six hours. Their statement is that they saw something, but police falsified the documents and stated they saw nothing. You have no issue with this?
So they have no witnesses backing up their account and the three independent witnesses they had did not agree with their statement of the situation. Instead of writing up their statement they tried to force them into their narrative, which they refused. You better believe if they could have gotten the witnesses to agree to what they were saying then they would have written it up and had them sign it. They choose to falsify the information by stating all of the witnesses saw nothing.
I'm not shocked I had to spell that out for you, because you were unable to digest what was written in the article, because you are clearly an idiot.
FYP:
DRK is clearly a mong or gay, because I've never once witnessed a person who keeps coming back again and again for an anal raping? So you are either a mong or you're gay, which one?Quote:
"excuse me truck driver, my name is Officer Smith. Can you tell me what you saw this evening?"
"it was like an execution"
"That's not what happened."
<police were visibly angry with him and arguing with him about what happened>
"Well, that's what I saw."
"No, you're wrong."
"I need to get back to work for a 6 a.m. shift"
"We don't give a f--- about your truck. Let's go through this again."
"Let me speak to my attorney."
"You're free to go."
<falsifying public records, say he didn't see anything>
DESTROYED
They held them for six hours
They are more than welcome to show up in court to testify that the police held them for 6 hours.....in the station, where there are cameras and microphones that would verify their statements.
Keep in mind, that at most scenes, when the police ask for witnesses, if the people dont have much to add, they wont have them sign anything. Someone that says THEY EXECUTED HIM!, isnt much of a witness. The people inside the burger king may have seen him for a minute or two, but probably wouldnt have seen anything down the street when he ran around the building and out into the street.
To answer your question, they were in a very black area, where people dont like the police and even the manager of the BK lied to say the cops were deleting files.
If people have proof of anything, they are more than welcome to provide any evidence and bring it up in court and swear under oath that its true.
There is too much to go through from that long article, but if those people are claiming things happened to them at the station, its all kept on video and audio, so let it come out later.
If they claimed things were said at the scene, well, thats going to be tough for either party to prove. If the cops did something wrong, they can be punished. Im rambling. You get the point. Wait for tapes and evidence. If there isnt any proof, this story fades away.
OOOH. Fright. Im "destroyed". <yawn>
we'll see. wait for them to go to court.
$20 wager still waiting for you to back up your talk....
http://rs556.pbsrc.com/albums/ss3/mu...dance.gif~c200
By your own moronic logic, Ive never seen a guy avoid backing up his big mouth so often, so you are either a special needs child, or chicken shit.
which one is it?
escrow with Druff.....unless....well....bawk bawk!
EDIT:There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 0 guests)
DRK Star, Muck Ficon
Easy $20 for ya, Muck...let me know.
and Fright, this is a key phrase for you, I forgot to post about earlier: " the attorneys for the teen's estate say."
You are reading information that the attorney for LaQuan alledges happened. Nothing that is in that report is confirmed to be true, yet. The attorney, AFTER THE FACT, claims that all these things happened (helps to have these issues for when you want to sue the city for $).
Seriously, are you fucking retarded?Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
Do you think the cops told them when they should show up in court to tell their side of the story?
Or were they just magically supposed to know like you have your magical insider resources?
Also, you fucking idiot, you assume that they knew there statements weren't going to be recorded for record.
I want you right here right now you pussy ass cop dicking sucking bitch to tell me right now that the officers were right in saying that the witnesses saw nothing when clearly the officers were told they saw something.
TELL ME RIGHT NOW THAT IT IS OK FOR AN OFFICER TO FABRICATE A STORY YOU COCK SUCKING FAGGOT IDIOT.
YOU ARE WITHOUT A DOUBT THE BIGGEST IDIOT ON THIS FORUM. I LOVE THE WAY YOU CONTINUE TO SUCK MY DICK BITCH.
Drk thinks this is a proper line that a "good" cop would take because his job has gotten harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
How can you have a rational discussion with someone who thinks this is acceptable?
Also how many times were you going to leave this thread and nap it out until the "facts" come out in the trial?
Fright......you are missing my point
there is NO PROOF anyone was held 6 hours.
You are reading something where the info was from AN ATTORNEY, REPRESENTING LAQUAN/LAQUANS FAMILY. He can state whatever he wants. He can claim that people went to a black op site and were held for 2 weeks. My gut tells me you wont hear much about any of this in a few months.
If anything TRULY HAPPENED, let them fight it out in court or sue the city. There is a very strong possibility that hardly any of this took place. Thats all. Pretty simple.
If anything DID take place, sue the hell out of the police, and get everyone fired.
Hopefully you understand now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTalkDrk thinks this is a proper line that a "good" cop would take because his job has gotten harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
How can you have a rational discussion with someone who thinks this is acceptable?
Also how many times were you going to leave this thread and nap it out until the "facts" come out in the trial?
Um, at what point did DRK think ANYTHING about (pay attention here) the statement that someone else made, that I copied and pasted?
How do you know what I THINK?
Do you even know what the officer in this case is referring to?
Oh, and, believe it or not, Im free to post whatever the fuck I want in this thread, and you are entitled to post in it, or pick your ass somewhere else. I was actually perfectly happy not posting info here anymore, but I have a pretty good source for all kinds of info that hardly anyone gets access to, so I thought that:
1. People would be interested in hearing that info
2. I could entertain some folks, interested in some good stories
3. Educate the very uneducated masses on things they have clearly demonstrated they know nothing about, yet want to talk shit about it
If necessary, I could ask Druff to NOT MAKE YOU read the thread anymore, since apparently, you're being forced to. Sorry for the inconvenience.
For example: Here is something I learned today that I never knew, and it will address some of the comments some of you have made.
at the moment the police have deemed that deadly force is necessary, they are supposed to aim and shoot at center mass. They are not supposed to shoot at legs or arms. If they are trained to shoot at arms/legs, and they accidentally hit the heart, they could get in trouble, because that would likely be Murder. "MY BABY WAS GETTIN HIS LIFE TOGETHER <cap and gown photo inserted here> AND HE ONLY HAD A BAT IN HIS HANDS!! YOU SHOULD HAVE SHOT HIM IN THE LEG, BUT YOU MISSED AN NOW HE DEAD!! WHERES JESSE AND AN ATTORNEY!??!
Intentional grey area of the law, but if you would like to have that changed, you can always try to find a way to do do.
this also includes the way they are trained to shoot until the person is no longer considered "A THREAT". If you can find a way to legally show that "X" amount of bullets will render a person to no longer be considered a threat, please submit that change for their consideration.
those of you that are giving those statements some solid thought, will realize its pretty much impossible. You can then understand why they are written the way they are, and how that allows to police to perform their jobs and legally protect their own (and others) lives.
Bonus info for Fr1ght: The police at the LaQuan scene dont interview people. The detectives do. They have to show up on the scene after the fact and conduct interviews, so if they want to blame the cops for doing anything, they really didnt. They might drive them somewhere and maybe say something short at the scene. If they speak with anyone, they get statements MOST (not all) of the time. Some statements are pretty worthless, so they may take their info, and that gets put into a database later. If you are an attorney, hoping to get paid, especially in this case, Its pretty easy to understand how he would exaggerate several things because, frankly, its going to be damn near impossible either way, so you may as well make up some ridiculous shit that will get the cop-haters all outraged. The angrier people are over this, the more the family stands to get paid by the city to go away. You WANT to go the The Guardian, Cop Block, Tin-Foil-Hat Weekly, CNN, Tribune, suntimes and get this story out, whether its legit or not.
Yes I'm sure you just copy/pasted 10 paragraphs from the blog because you don't have an opinion on it. makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK StarQuote:
Originally Posted by RealTalk
Um, at what point did DRK think ANYTHING about (pay attention here) the statement that someone else made, that I copied and pasted?
How do you know what I THINK?
Do you even know what the officer in this case is referring to?
Oh, and, believe it or not, Im free to post whatever the fuck I want in this thread, and you are entitled to post in it, or pick your ass somewhere else. I was actually perfectly happy not posting info here anymore, but I have a pretty good source for all kinds of info that hardly anyone gets access to, so I thought that:
1. People would be interested in hearing that info
2. I could entertain some folks, interested in some good stories
3. Educate the very uneducated masses on things they have clearly demonstrated they know nothing about, yet want to talk shit about it
If necessary, I could ask Druff to NOT MAKE YOU read the thread anymore, since apparently, you're being forced to. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Lol you are such a sensitive pussy. Where did I say you aren't entitled to post what you want, where you want? I just find it entertaining how many times you have tilted and vowed never to return to this thread only to show up 6 hours later copy/pasting war and peace excerpts from random cop blogs, pleading with people to watch 45 min(LOL) YouTube videos and begging for $20 bets to be escrowed to druff.
For the record I actually like your posts most of the time(juggalos, phish, random things thread, sports betting, etc), but when you post about police and skatz you are literally the nut worst imo.
By all means carry on though.