typed for your pleasure on 8 December 2005, at 10.44 pm

Sdtrk: ‘Et moi, et toi, et soie’ by Cléo

Heh. I’m thinking someone just managed to squeak by on their psychological tests.

Police: Officer Zaps Partner After Soda Dispute

POSTED: 7:19 am EST December 8, 2005

HAMTRAMCK, Mich. — Authorities said a police officer in Michigan used a Taser stun gun on his partner during an argument about stopping for a soft drink.

The suspect was fired after the Nov. 3 incident and is charged with assault.

Ronald Dupuis, 32, could get up to 93 days in jail if convicted.

Authorities said Dupuis asked partner Prema Graham to stop at a store for a soft drink, but she refused and instead kept driving back to headquarters.

Authorities said the partners struggled over the steering wheel, and Dupuis hit Graham’s leg with his department-issued Taser gun. She wasn’t seriously hurt.

Apart from the fact that she was tasered in the leg, of course.
At least his badge was revoked. And why only 93 days? Might as well round it off and make it a year, just to make sure. This is the sort of thing that further solidifies the idea that I’ve always held, that you really have to be a certain type of psychotic to become a police officer these days

Random similar posts, for more timewasting:

Grammatik macht Frei on September 14th, 2006

Aren't they done with all of this 'Star wars' bollocks? on March 17th, 2005


  1. Jeff "Wolfgang" Lilly writes:

    Cops are… okay, I’m going to get in trouble for this, so I have to preface it by saying that cops do a difficult job, etc… fuck it, no I don’t. Okay. Every cop I’ve ever personally talked to or dealt with strikes me as the kind of lad (or lass) who, in school, was never smart enough to excel, never popular enough to be, well, popular… and never strong enough to be a bully. Feeling vanilla and mediocre for most of their lives, they went out and got a gun, a badge, and the government’s blessing to use lethal force if absolutely necessary (and crippling force if denied a soft drink). They now have said gun and badge and are ready to inflict themselves and all of their horrible self-percieved inadequacies on the civilian population. Hey, at least they’re not security guards… who either didn’t have what it takes to be cops, or else were wacky and unique enough to be rejected by the cop clique… or perhaps security personnel are just smart enough to take a job that exposes them to less enemy fire.

  2. SafeTinspector writes:

    I went to Lutheran High East. The school was full of cop and firemen kids, because there were residency requirements in those days and no cop or fireman would voluntarily send their kids to public school in Detroit.

    One of my classmates is now a cop, and despite being very tall, was always the sweetest fellow. Soft-spoken and big-hearted. He’s now a third-generation police officer and is a real domestic hero.

    My wife’s father, while he was a reprehensible philanderer and a home-wrecker, has a well developed sense of justice and always considered his duty to be the defence of the helpless.

    I’m going to call you out for over-generalizing (such an odd thing for a liberal to do!), WG.

    I will posit that good cops hardly ever hit the news. I will even go so far as to say that the dickhead to normal ratio is way off-balance within police departments.
    And some of them are adrenaline addicted and testosterone crazed.

    In response to the Hamtramck story:
    He was a bonafide idiot. Good thing they fired him. Hamtramck is a pit, is bankrupt, and I can’t imagine they pay their cops well. That means they get the bottom feeders! People who can’t get a job anywhere else.

  3. Davecat writes:

    I don’t know; WG has painted cops with a broad brush, but you know what? I agree with him. Yes, cops do a lot of shitty work, and have to deal with shittier people; yes, there are good cops out there, but unfortunately, it seems that for every good cop, there’s like 25 bad cops. My personal experience with cops has ranged from just dumb (pulled over for moving violations), to terrifying (pulled over and being held at gunpoint due to a case of mistaken identity).

    You pretty much have to be adrenaline-addicted and testosterone-crazed to be an effective cop! They don’t really make a habit of thinking first and apprehending later. That is, if they’re thinking at all. And if you’re with your cop partner, trying to wrest the wheel from her and screaming ‘I WANT A FUCKING SODA’, then there’s a problem. Cos that sort of person should not, under any circumstances, have a badge.
    I found an additional article about ex-officer Dupuis, that stated that he’d bounced around from one department to another – he’d been at six different departments within as many years. It’s stunning that someone like that could be retained for as long as they have.

    The days of Officer Clancy O’Hanrahan walking the beat and whistling a little tune are long gone. Now, its more like ‘we’re the ones with the badges and guns. Don’t fuck with us, cos these streets are ours.’

    And Hamtramck isn’t a pit of bottom-feeders; that’s Highland park.

  4. Jeff "Wolfgang" Lilly writes:

    Hey, Safe-T, whaddaya mean? Liberals are just as guilty of using a broad brush as anyone else (though the quality of whitewash we employ tends to be of better quality…) Of course, I knew that as soon as I opened my fat mouth I would get someone telling me about a nice cop they know. You know what? Nice cops exist. They HAVE to, statistically. I just wish I could say I’ve met one. Every cop I have dealt with has gone out of their way to be a dick to either myself or my friends. That INCLUDES all of the cops I had to deal with in Japan. So to the nice cops (and the folks who know them), this one’s for you. Where have you been all my life?

  5. SafeTinspector writes:

    DC, I think that, also, is a big ‘ol over-generalization.

    25 to 1? Honest? Of the ten or so cops I know, four are dicks.
    Of the last ten people I met today, I’d say eight were dicks.

    Anecdotal, but an observation nonetheless.

  6. SafeTinspector writes:

    WG, its a necessary profession, and I optimistically assume that a decent proportion of them are not forces of evil.

    My experience with them has been quite unlike yours, and experience informs our expectations of the future and sense of reality. I guess I’ll leave it at that, right?

  7. Jeff "Wolfgang" Lilly writes:

    Come on, Safe-T. I optimistically assume most of them are not card-carrying members of Satan’s brigade, too… and I don’ t believe I ever implied that they were. All I said is that cops, as a group, tend to be insecure people. I have seen this insecurity come to the fore in the form of racism, homophobia, and thuggishness where none was necessary. These are all first-hand experiences, too… not based on any media reports. I never said cops were evil. Cops have the same pluses and minuses, personality-wise, as the rest of the population. All I suggested was that the profession of “cop” tends to draw a certain type of person… much as “writer” tends to draw folks like me.

  8. SafeTinspector writes:

    Yes, all cops are pigs.

    All anime fans are fat slobs that sit around masturbating to hentai and scarf bag after bag of cheetos.

    All blacks are lazy, bad parents, and on drugs.

    All Polish are stupid.

    All whites are insensitive and privileged.

    Wolfgang, I’m just trying to say that a stereotype, even if it isn’t false in all cases, is still a shitty thing to be unloading on people. And liberals should be uniquely aware of it and avoid it like the plague. And writers, especially so.

  9. Jeff "Wolfgang" Lilly writes:

    Safe-T… please, just READ what I WROTE.
    I never said all cops are pigs.
    YOU did.
    I never said that cops are evil.
    YOU did.
    I said that cops tend to be insecure. This is an example of a non-destructive stereotype. The hurtful bullshit you trotted out above is an example of destructive stereotyping. Since you apparently can’t figure out the difference, allow me to educate you:
    The usefulness (and fun, if judiciously applied) of a non-destructive stereotype is that there tends to be a reason behind it. Just like pro athletes tend to be in good shape, writers tend to be reclusive, and anime fans tend to be socially inept. Notice I didn’t paint with a broad brush- I said “tends to be”. Are you going to argue those points with me? (hint- don’t even try)
    When it is carried too far, when the stereotyping is hurtful, when the wording is absolute (all blacks are lazy, bad parents, and on drugs), it becomes a destructive stereotype. Destructive stereotypes can be easily debunked because they are DEMONSTRABLY NOT TRUE. Obviously, all Poles are not stupid. Ever hear of Copernicus? BAM. Destructive stereotype shot down.
    Few (rational, observant) people would argue with me when I say that writers tend to be reclusive and solitary and have poorer than average social skills. That’s me, to a T. The wonderful thing about non-destructive stereotypes, you see, is that there are always exceptions to the rule. Just like with cops. Other times, there needs to be no exception, because we are all flawed beings anyway… the fact that I, like most writers, tend to be a recluse does not preclude me from having friends, having a happy marriage, and having a fun life. Just like the fact that most cops, while dealing with their insecurities, are probably not bad people.
    Again, I’m sorry I offended you, but please don’t try slinging all of that destructive stereotype bullshit at me. It won’t stick, because you know that isn’t what I said, or what I meant.
    I have also already admitted that liberals have flaws, too. And, as you might notice, while I am socially liberal, I am NOT politically correct.

  10. Jeff "Wolfgang" Lilly writes:

    And another thing… go back to my first posting. Notice I said “every cop I’ve personally met”. I have had some bad experiences, yessir. And yet, despite the fact that cops have dragged my friends off to jail because they happened to be black in Sterling Whites… er, Heights… , despite the fact that I was followed and harassed by cops because I was white (in Japan), despite the fact that I once had to quit a good-paying night job because on my way home I would invariably be stopped and illegally searched by a Rochester Hills cop who, upon always getting a negative breathalyzer test from me and never finding anything illegal or stolen in my car, threatened to plant drugs on me if I ever reported his illegal searches to his superiors,.. despite all of this, I am STILL willing to limit my comments to “only cops I have met” and acknowledge the fact that good cops are out there… why, it does my bleeding little liberal heart good to know how gosh-darned open-minded I am.

  11. SafeTinspector writes:

    Claiming one stereotype is destructive while another is not seems to be an intellectual cop out.
    My stereotypes aren’t destructive because I like to use them.
    Your stereotypes are bad because I don’t agree with them.

    The word of your original post did mention every cop you personally have ever met or talked to, but the spirit of the post was that of a blanket condemnation; such a toothless conditional modifier seems clearly to have been intended as a CYA insurance policy.
    Your first sentance, “I have to preface it by saying that cops do a difficult job, etc… fuck it, no I don’t” makes it clear that you don’t think that there are any meaningful exceptions to the rest of your statements.
    I don’t mean to get you upset, really, I just want you to understand that you may be engaging in hurtful stereotyping even though you clearly don’t think you are.

    I’m personally hurt because I have friends and relatives that are police, and I feel as if genuine people I know and love have been maligned. Exactly as anyone affected by a negative stereotype might.

  12. SafeTinspector writes:

    A word on using personal experience as justification for stereotyping: My wife lived in a bad neighborhood in Detroit when we were first dating. Gang activity on the corner, random and gratuitous acts of property damage often inflicted upon her possessions (meager though they were at the time), more than one sexual threat visited upon her, and violence purpetrated upon a friend or two–including her brother, who was beaten by coworkers at a local grocery store.

    The skin color of each and every one of the people one the other side of these experiences is still not sufficient cause for me to be self-indulgent enough to engage in stereotyping, nor have I ever tolerated such from her.

    I know that these experiences are statistically insignificant, anecdotal, and insufficient to justify bigotry.

  13. Jeff "Wolfgang" Lilly writes:

    Let’s try this one more time…

    “Claiming one stereotype is destructive while another is not seems to be an intellectual cop out.
    My stereotypes aren’t destructive because I like to use them.
    Your stereotypes are bad because I don’t agree with them.”

    Nope. My stereotypes are not destructive because they are generalizations that were used in a non-destructive, non-hurtful way. The examples YOU put forth ARE destructive, because they are used in a hostile, destructive manner. It’s that simple.
    You are angry and hurt because you have friends and relatives who are police. Let’s examine this. Am I the cause of this anger and hurt? No.
    YOU are angry and hurt because YOU refuse to take responsibility for YOUR (incorrect, limited, out of context and increasingly incoherent) interpretation of my words. I never said cops are evil. You just think I did. I never said cops are all bad. You just think I did. You put words in my mouth and continue to attempt to smear me, putting my quirky observation on the same level as raw bigotry.
    I pointed out that my bad experiences do not inspire feelings of prejudice in me. You point out exactly the same thing. Your point is…?
    Until you take responsibility for your own feelings (and stop attempting to blame others for your lack of insight), you will continue to be “angry and hurt”. You constantly call on me, as a nice liberal, to be more careful with my words. Perhaps, instead of asking people to censor themselves, it might be more beneficial for the listeners to make a better attempt at understanding what is said in the first place.

  14. SafeTinspector writes:

    I don’t think you said all cops are bad.
    Your first post did begin:
    “Cops are…”
    You back pedaled a bit after that, but the tenor of the post was blanket condemnation. And I’ve already explained how I think your conditional modifier lacked teeth.

    I think you are now guilty of putting words in my mouth. I don’t want to get into finger pointing, but I never actually said you were claiming cops were evil. The closest statement to that was when I said, “WG, its a necessary profession, and I optimistically assume that a decent proportion of them are not forces of evil.
    I overstepped through thoughtlessness; you called me on it, and that was the last I spake on that subject. Honestly, I was exaggerating your position to throw it into relief. A dirty debating trick, sorry.

    What you were really stating, and repeated in a subsequent comment, is that cops are insecure, and effectively that they are cowards.

    I don’t ask you to censor yourself. What you said is said. I merely want you to see that you might have engaged in stereotyping. I’m not even angry (this is one of those cases of text communication being unable to convey tone), more intellectually challenged than anything else. I love a good debate. 🙂

    How do you define destructive stereotyping, anyway?
    I can use a racial stereotype to make a joke, and this joke doesn’t result in anyone losing a job or receiving a beating, but it may influence the opinion of an observer.
    You can use an occupational stereotype to make a bold statement about police in general. It isn’t used for humorous effect, and while it doesn’t result in beatings or loss of job, it seems more geniunely angry than my aforementioned joke, and may influence the opinion of an observer.
    Which one is destructive? Possibly neither, I guess, depending on your definition.
    I would go so far as to state that destructiveness shouldn’t even be considered a contributing factor. Stereotyping is probably bad unless used to satirize or parodize itself and its effects.

  15. KrazyQ Teh Smrat Guy writes:


  16. Davecat writes:

    Lads, lads.. healthy debate is all well and good, however I think we’ve kinda gotten off-track away from the initial subject at hand.
    Which would be, of course, get me a goddamn soda pop, motherfucker.

Leave a charming reply