Let's see how many more negatives I can get

And therein lies your problem. When an officer is on duty they carry the weight and trust of the citizens they are sworn to protect. If they do something intentionally criminal then that criminal act is all the more egregious. However, when they are off duty and commit a criminal act then they are nothing more than a criminal and should be treated as such. Its not a matter of switching it on and off. You could have a cop that comes home every night and beats his wife. That's a criminal act and he should be punished for it. But when he's working he might never commit a crime and risk his life for people he doesn't know. That is the duality of human nature. You might have a banker whom people trust with their life savings, that banker may never steal from them, yet he might be a big time dvd shoplifter. What people need to watch out for is the rush to judgment our 24 hr news cycle pushes on us. This is even more so when you put the word police in front of any headline.

Welcome to the club! :D

Oh yeah a negative really means they like it. Trust me if you post more they will come so keep your head high and dont worry about the negative fairy

The worst part about the thumbs down faerie is that he/she will NEVER tell you why! This I know...

Well I'm a cop and I voted you thumbs down on both posts. I voted you thumbs down because you, like most who seem to dislike the police, choose to paint all cops with the same brush. You took your first article and made a point of stating that some cops, albeit off duty, beat up and robbed a guy. When was the last time you heard anyone say, 'some off duty barbers robbed a guy last night?' They don't, because it doesn't matter. A criminal act is a criminal act regardless of what you do for your work. If there was a criminal act committed then those persons who did it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - regardless of their profession. The second article was also presented poorly. The bottom line, regardless of how fast the cop was driving, was that the guy got pull over because he was **speeding** NOT because he was driving nose to nose with the cop. Making the implication that the officer pulled him over because someone dared to challenge his rule of the road by going side by side with him is just pure crap. Here's what is also amusing to me when people who apparently don't know squat about police work decide to chime in. The speed limit there was 100km/hr. The writer of the article was basically complaining because people couldn't go faster than the speed limit. By cruising at 110km/hr, slightly over the speed limit, that cop was enforcing a traffic law simply by his mere presence. Much the same way a cop having coffee at a gas station provides a smidgeon of protection by his very presence. Yet because people were forced to obey the law he complains and then has the audacity to place the blame on the cop. When you start posting an article on how a cop saved someone, or solved a murder, or did 'shop with a cop' program for Christmas, or any of the other hundred ways the police help people, for each 'negative' article you post, then, and only then will you have any credibility. Until that point you'll just be another person who is clueless about police work, and looking for a reason to bash them. Or I could be like you and make assumptions - maybe you don't like the police because you are a criminal? Because you've been arrested for breaking a law? Because you once saw something happen that you thought was unfair or out of line? Because your daddy was a cop and you hated him so you transfer your feelings to other cops?

It's the cops on their power trips who ruin it for all of you other good cops.

Did that really say that the cruiser was creating a hazardous situation by driving the speed limit, thereby enforcing it on all those around him? BWAHAHAHAHA!!! and you agree with it. -2 Raider +1

@ Ledfut - Ah but the cops didn't arrest a guy against his will - their normal work function,(ie cut his hair), they, allegedly, assaulted and robbed someone. A criminal action no matter who takes it, be they cop, barber, or ice cream vendor. That is my point. > You apparently took some dislike to my assumption of your motivations - Thank you for proving my point. I would wager most of us dislike hooligans and racists. Them being cops in their 'day job' doesn't make them any worse than anyone else who chooses to rob and assault someone. Its probably territorial on my part but the only ones who get to look at them with that additional scrutiny are other cops, whose jobs just got a little bit harder because people, like those who wrote the articles and apparently like you, can't seem to differentiate between on-duty and off-duty. I assure you, had those actions been taken while those officers were 'on-duty' under the shield of their official powers, I would be right there with you. @ jcotter13 - You probably have no idea just how right that statement is.