http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/we...rds/ar-BBWgqVY?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=LENDHP#image=1
OK, I spent so long typing my rant about this article, that my log-in timed out and I lost everything I typed, broken down over all the wild numbers this article throws out there. I'm not typing all that again, but in summary, this article puts all kinds of huge numbers out suggesting rampant police misconduct and abuse everywhere, careful to occasionally slip in an "alleged" or "called into question" so they can't be held to any hard numbers. The worst example is the link in the article to the "Search database" page, which claims to be a list of "more than 30,000 police officers BANNED by 44 states," and the article says they are "decertified" which is "essentially BANNED from the profession." So if you search the database for Louisiana, 87 names come up, but if you click the link under each name, it goes further to a list that shows a grand total of SIX officers decertified for "Misconduct", while the rest indicated "Failure to maintain in-service training standards" as the reason. As in, they missed a class. Missed the deadline on an on-line recertification. Quit and their POST certification expired. That's it, and that's what has chapped my hide so sorely over this article. It's the laziest kind of "journalism" to just throw out big numbers and suggestive terms, and the most shameless type of broad-brushing of the entire profession.
Between what I first typed and lost, and this re-hash, my rant is now out of steam. Thanks for listening, read the article and get a good laugh yourself!
OK, I spent so long typing my rant about this article, that my log-in timed out and I lost everything I typed, broken down over all the wild numbers this article throws out there. I'm not typing all that again, but in summary, this article puts all kinds of huge numbers out suggesting rampant police misconduct and abuse everywhere, careful to occasionally slip in an "alleged" or "called into question" so they can't be held to any hard numbers. The worst example is the link in the article to the "Search database" page, which claims to be a list of "more than 30,000 police officers BANNED by 44 states," and the article says they are "decertified" which is "essentially BANNED from the profession." So if you search the database for Louisiana, 87 names come up, but if you click the link under each name, it goes further to a list that shows a grand total of SIX officers decertified for "Misconduct", while the rest indicated "Failure to maintain in-service training standards" as the reason. As in, they missed a class. Missed the deadline on an on-line recertification. Quit and their POST certification expired. That's it, and that's what has chapped my hide so sorely over this article. It's the laziest kind of "journalism" to just throw out big numbers and suggestive terms, and the most shameless type of broad-brushing of the entire profession.
Between what I first typed and lost, and this re-hash, my rant is now out of steam. Thanks for listening, read the article and get a good laugh yourself!
