Seriously? Do they fire cops? For anything?

As you guys know, I'm not down with criminal prosecution. But it really tears me up that police officers, who basically commit lethal malpractice, still remain on the street to "protect us." More on this later, running to a panel. For now, check out this heart-breaker, courtesy of commenter MouseJunior. No more complaints about black people who won't talk to cops, please. Crack down on your own incompetence, rid your own house of thuggism. Then complain about us.

Comments

Yes, the cops dark techniques had dire consequences. However, exactly how was it a heart-breaker? If the article's details can be trusted, Martha was in fact actively helping the murderer cover up another murder. She was a soldier that died like a soldier. Maybe the heart-breaker is that she was soldier in the first place, but that fact can't be pinned on the screwed up cops.

Posted by Michael O'Neill | July 5, 2008 7:25 PM

So she deserved to die? Don't imply it. Go ahead and say it. Say this 16-year-old deserved to die. Matter-of-fact, go tell her parents that.

Posted by Groove | July 6, 2008 1:01 AM

LA is notoriously inept at keeping cooperating witnesses alive.

But now, witnesses can rest reassured that if they cooperate with the cops, the gangs will have them killed, and if they refuse to cooperate, the cops will set them up to be killed. No more tough decisions! Yay!

Posted by MouseJunior | July 6, 2008 3:36 PM

The double standard is delicious. Police officers cannot be trusted if you are a suspect, but if you are on a jury, then it is unimaginable that a police officer would lie.

Indeed, it would seem as if being a detective is a job which not only requires lying, but where the most important job skill is that you should be able to do so believably.

Posted by James Feldman | July 6, 2008 3:46 PM

@Groove
Do I think she deserved to die? Did I imply it? No, on both. I said she put herself in play when she actively staked out a life where covering up murder was AOK on one hand. Only an idiot doesn't know what's in the other hand. The game is the game, and the Marthas of the world can't decide to play sometimes and not all the time. It doesn't work like that. The game is a black hole.

Would the parents of the murder victim that Martha was trying to thwart justice and cover up shed a tear for her? Maybe, maybe not. Why don't you ask them since you seem fond of directing other folks to talk to dead kid's parents.

Posted by Michael O'Neill | July 7, 2008 4:40 PM

@ Mike O'Neil

It's just incredibly callous to imply it wasn't necessarily a heartbreaker that a 16-year-old was killed for something she didn't do. Or to try and lecture her or her loved ones about "the game and being a solider." Did you have a thorough grasp of your actions when you were a teenager? And do you have any idea about where she was from and what happens to people who talk to the police from her neighborhood? Seems like she had the right idea. She knew something would happen to her if she talked and it did. Seems like while the police were trying to "achieve justice" they weren't too particularly worried about protecting her.

Not to mention this analysis is warped anyway because she wasn't trying to thrwart justice. That's a misunderstanding of the situation. It wasn't her job to solve this crime so she can't thwart "justice." That was the police's job, who are at fault for lack of witnesses speaking up in the first place, and deal with many uncooperative witnesses daily and still solve crimes. And how did they go about this? Lying about her to try and get the desired result. So get your facts straight before you talk about "justice."

The implication there is clear. If you're upset that you got called out on it, that's tough. She isn't here to defend herself.

And I don't have to go talk to anyone. I can go talk to my aunt, who's son was killed in the police's attempts for "justice." He was a cooperative witness who was willing to testify and he was killed because the police didn't protect him. This isn't something I'm waxing poetic about on some blog during episodes of X-Files. This is something I lived.

Again, I don't want this to become some flame war 'cause I've spoken my piece. And I enjoy this blog too much to continue it so this is the last you'll hear from me on this blog about it. You're more than welcome to email me personally to continue this conversation.

But I think you were out-of-line for implying feeling remorse for this kid isn't warranted. She deserves it. You wanna defend your right to not care that's fine. But you don't get a drop of respect from me for doing it.

Posted by Groove | July 9, 2008 8:45 PM

@Groove
There won't be a flame war. Like you, I too enjoy the blog way too much for nonsense like that, disagreements aside.

I would like to request of you to re-read the article because I think you are missing the main point I was referencing in it.

Find the paragraph beginning, "Far from helping the police..."

If it is true, it demonstrates a level of depravity that cannot be excused with a nodding excuse of not knowing exactly what we were doing as teens. I'm sure both of us knew very firmly at any age that murder wasn't something to actively cover up and implicity threaten it upon others in very real terms. In fact it demonstrates she was willing to do something eerily similar, in effect, to that which the cops did to her in the end - tell the bad guys she was a snitch.

So, yes it's sad story, yes it's terribly sad, yes those cops are completely culpable. I think she deserved to grow up into a old woman with a happly life behind her.

Either your eyes didn't catch that paragraph or perhaps we differ on the semantics of what is a heart-breaking story versus a very good story that illuminates a completely messed up tale of corrupted pattern of police work.

Posted by Michael O'Neill | July 9, 2008 10:08 PM