Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "ABC Action News"
channel.
-
7
-
4
-
2
-
@kennethmwitalis2965 : They had a review board hearing, made up of their buddy cops, which, “cleared,” him of wrongdoing, so the police Union rep is literally, “stunned,” that the chief is even interested in accountability. That’s the most chilling thing about this. Not just that he would say that out loud, but he really meant it! They defend their own, regardless of right, wrong or middle. And he can’t believe, after a successful white wash, that the chief would do her job! This story is both refreshingly reassuring (as far as the chief goes) and Dracula-Black-Bone-Chilling, that the Union is not only openly crooked, but right up in the public’s face about it! . . .
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Totally. I didn’t like the way this was reported though. The guy trolls a Deputy because he thinks he’s corrupt, and the Deputy goes on to prove him right, by being corrupt. And ABC calls this guy’s trolling, “Anti-Police slogans,” when it was so clearly PRO-POLICE!
Expressing disgust at police corruption is what ANY right minded citizen would do! Maybe this guy’s trolling just irritated everyone and made things worse? Maybe it didn’t? But that was the only person in this story who expected better from the police and was willing to challenge their corruption, outright! How is that, “Anti Police?”???
The press being lazy and un-analytical just adds to the problem, which is why people find it so easy to label people like BLM (another Pro-Law & Order campaign) however they like, until it looks the opposite of what it is, to dumb people. BLM wouldn’t be needed (or even exist!) if some cops weren’t racist and corrupt! It’s getting harder every day to believe it’s still a minority of cops who break the laws, and the press needs to tread carefully and report what it sees, not its attitudes . . . ✌️
1
-
@leeleestonecipher5199 : I agree that the standard should be the least forgiving for cops, instead of the opposite, which is what we so often see. Certainly in terms of sentencing. Though, in this case, the judge should acknowledge that the corrupt Deputy didn’t go through with it, in the end? Perhaps reduce his minimum term? So as to encourage other cops into knowing they can still stop, even after planting evidence, and that it’s worth it? Otherwise, we’ll wind up with a, “Do or Die,” mentality, with cops feeling, once they’ve crossed that line, there’s no way back. It’s tricky. What do you think?
1
-
1