The only times in my adult life that I have been afraid are those times when I am visible to a police person.

Hello mckenziecalhoun,
I find we are in general agreement. I would however propound the notion that in the case of Holder since he is the AG, there is no one with a higher rank among law enforcement, so he has no routine watchdog so long as the POTUS is aligned with his politics and approves of his actions. This factor along with the present state of our Congress has made the man virtually untouchable. Even if he is found guilty of something it is highly likely that Obama will pardon him.

As far as individual morality/ethics go, it is, as you know, not the criteria for legality.

In Ben Shapiro's new book (which I am presently reading), the case is well made that he and many in the administration have committed many crimes, but seem untouchable so long as the AG's office is in their pocket. The investigations are not serious and only kabuki theater with a preordained outcome destined only to find some low level scapegoats and maintain plausible deniability for the true puppet-masters.
Respectfully,
O.A.

And I agree on Holder, always have.
But there is a reality here that people often forget:
NO person EVER REALLY thinks, "I am the bad guy".
They may say it, but beneath it they say, "I am the victim and they deserve it" (for whatever reason. Most of the time they are thinking "I'm doing the right thing."

Different ethics. May be totally illegal. I utterly disagree with the ethics of Holder in his actions in this case. But what we have is a group of people (Holder and others chose them for their ethics, which are NOT universal) and that's how you end up with things like Fast and Furious.

Look at Islam - VERY ethical...with others they perceive with Muslims. But the word "innocents" doesn't include infidels.

Black hats and white hats only exist in fictional stories and children's tales. In reality, we're all the "good guy" in our personal narrative.

Even this officer. Doesn't mean we don't prosecute. Not an excuse. I don't have the same ethics as Holder - so I oppose his efforts.

That's why they have internal affairs and several other oversight communities. Watchdogs on watchdogs - many are unfamiliar with them. Having had a father in law-enforcement, I am not.
Remember, that's how this officer got caught - video from his own car. No one is better watched than police officers.

Hello mckenziecalhoun,
Holder is doing everything possible to cover up and withhold evidence of the illegal strawman purchases and resulting deaths of fast and furious. This is why he was found guilty of contempt of congress. He wasn't providing subpoenaed information or answering pertinent questions. There has been clear evidence of obstruction of justice. They broke federal law and knew it. Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68) --- Title 18, United States Code, § 922 (a)(6). This is just one of many examples of his lawlessness. The clear foot dragging regarding the IRS scandal is another. The AG is not supposed to apply the law with any political leanings or discretion. He is supposed to apply the law (all laws) objectively whether he agrees with them or not (the same goes for our POTUS when he swears to uphold the Constitution). It is up to the legislature to set and determine law. It is up to the AG to enforce them, whether he agrees or not.

Regarding your perspective on blanket statements about every police officer or department I agree. Many are dedicated respectable law enforcers who serve and protect, but it only takes a few bad apples.
Respectfully,
O.A.

If people policed themselves, we wouldn't need very many laws, indeed.

And if there weren't so many people wanting power over others, we wouldn't need so many laws.

I agree with you completely as to the abysmal "education" in the government indoctrination centers. However, as wrong as these people are in their philosophy and as poorly educated as they are, they do believe in the righteousness of their ways, so, yes, they choose that profession to educate, in the way that they consider education. Cops, I believe for the most part, choose their profession because it allows an uneducated, underachieving person to hold considerable power over an average person. Of course there are exceptions, but don't waste your time looking for the person who joined the force to help old ladies cross the street. And the socialist indoctrinated teachers would, generally, not have guns, but a few of the "normal" ones will have them. Once schools stop being "gun free zones" (that is, for all except the criminals), the criminals will not be attracted to safe places for the criminals.

Teachers choose the profession to educate? Then why is that not happening, rather brainwashing is happening. I have known a lot of teachers, as part of the school Strategic Plan Team, and they are reactionary and not practitioners of reason for the most part. They are far too emotional in most cases, to be charged with to kill or not to kill, with a split second to decide. When my daughter was in school, they could not even handle a bully.

I can come up with several myself.
It's no excuse for vilifying all police officers - that's tin-foil hat terrain.
When Fast and Furious is brought into court and tried as treason, THEN I'll treat it as treason.
That almost NO ONE is doing anything of the sort, on either side of the political aisle, I take to mean that there isn't any way to be sure such a charge will stick.

That you don't know that what you are saying is your opinion, lacking actual charges, is your issue.
The rest of us will continue to investigate, and use legal and ethical methods for charging criminals. This cop was dealt with through the system you deride, but read the sentence.
Totally appropriate to the crime. Why would I join in the equivalent of mob rule?
Investigate, prosecute. They did it this time and it worked.
The number of cops who commit crimes, even are accused of crimes, is very small compared to the general public. That's why it's NEWS - it's rare and unusual.

In addition, what you missed about cop who died was that he also had otherwise a lifetime of service risking his life for the safety of people like you. His act was contemptible, but you'd condemn all of the 1000 cops for daring to recognize the REST of the man's life of service? That's just over the top silly.

Attempting to prove the guilt of an entire institution that has run for 200 years plus over a few instances of problems is silly as well.

You're wasting my time with this. I could easily condemn you because of all the civilian crime. Or name a group you belong to and I could find instances of people in that group who have committed crime and thus condemn you?

What nonsense.
If you have GENUINE proof there is a massive conspiracy, show it.
Otherwise, I'm done. The only thing down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories is rabbit pellets and the people that eat them thinking they'll make themselves bigger - I have no interest in joining them (apologies to Alice and Lewis Carroll).

Fast and Furious was not a simple lapse of ethics. The operation involved willfully and knowingly supplying arms to Mexican drug dealers in order to facilitate deaths and then claim that those deaths were the result of "lax" US gun laws, e.g., the Second Amendment. I don't know how you can view this as simply an ethical issue - this is treason against the Constitution; certainly more substantial than that committed by the Rosenbergs.
As to the typical police departments white-wash and cover ups during internal investigations, again you surprise me the blinders - when you have a department investigating itself, what results do you really expect? A couple of years ago my little community in VA had a wild cop who had several high speed accidents in a couple of years on the force and finally committed a big one - on an non-emergency call he sped up to over 130 mi/hr on main street during rush hour - sent two people to a hospital, split his car in two equal parts and instantly became a martyr. Instead of admitting that this punk was a low level criminal, the department gave him a funeral, attended by 1,000 cops from around the country (at your and my expense) and proclaimed him to be a hero! You wanted an example - that's one. Need I go on with more examples?

There was nothing illegal in what Holder did, as unethical as it was TO ME and YOU.
People will follow ethics that are different from yours and mine.
Holder saw no conflict in being Attorney General AND an activist at the same time - I'd call that an ethical conflict of interests - but the Bar would not.
What you are suggesting is one of two things: Either every police department in the country (Or nearly, based on the way you phrased it) is involved (that's tens of thousands), or you're just referring to this particular one and perhaps a few others, in which case I'd agree.
But blanket "they're all crooked" statements without evidence simply do not fly.
Even police officers (452,037), non-police employees (1,021,456-452,037), police stations (no statistic) deserve a simple truth and regardless of what you are suggesting, I'll stick with that:
"Innocent until proved guilty".

Why would that involve tens of thousands? Only a handful of top managers drive the policy; the sheeple follow. Were tens of thousands of the Injustice Department employees involved in the cover ups of Holder and gang? Fast and Furious - for example. Were tens of thousands involved in the IRS cover ups? When the foxes are guarding the hen house, the consent of the chickens is not required.

And stop them from stopping people just because they don't have a seat belt.
That's protecting us from ourselves and doing so on a local, state and federal levels when such laws are passed and it's an encroachment on our freedoms.

The issue is a bit bigger than trigger happy cops.

That would involve tens of thousands of willing participants in a conspiracy to "cover up and promote the agency".

If you believe that, that's your choice.
I have serious trouble believing that without evidence.

Some cases? Of course. As an agency?
No. Would still rather trust my safety to a police officer than someone from the general public.

What is with all the down voting?!

All your fighting had little to do with cops - they are just left holding the bag on enforcement of victimless crime - a soul destroying headache.

I think the only thing really new about this is the video camera.
The typical person (bullies) recruited to, or interested in this profession lends itself to a percentage of cops that will behave like this. The cameras should help weed them our faster now.

Police Departments need to quit recruiting bullies, who are also naturally attracted to the profession.

The policeman overreacted and shot the guy when he should not have. However, the guy dove into his car and started grabbing for something a bit too quickly (he probably panicked). He really should have done something like say to the policeman "My license and registration are in my car, would you mind if I reached in there and got it? You can even watch me do it"

You are discounting a major factor - a teacher, who has a gun, has chosen the profession of teaching in order to educate; a cop, who has a gun, has chosen his or her profession to control people. I would trust a teacher not to kill me much more than I would trust a cop to do the same.

Get down on one knee. And if you have to deal with a testosterone-bursting female cop, prostrate yourself...

"they are actively assessed after every violent incident..." Not quite true. Yes, there is a review after each incident by ... the fox guarding the hen house... The reviews are always by the same agency whose goal is to cover up and promote the agency... Like the Injustice Department investigating Eric Holder... right....

That officer is too stupid to be allowed to carry a gun. The lesson to us is to move very slowly and repeat back everything a cop says to be sure both understand what he is saying. This is so sad.