Wait, what?

I almost couldn't believe when I read another article about the situation in Missouri. Apparently the chief of police is rather upset that the public has become outraged at the conduct of his officers. He openly defends their conduct and doesn't see a problem ... And that's a problem.

"A whole bunch of what you'd call citizen journalists, who were sitting with cameras recording, waiting for something stupid to happen, which they got. They won on this one," Jimenez told the publication.

First off, referring to citizen journalists is a bit hypocritical when your police force is caught in outright lies. Secondly, they are witnesses to the conduct that your officers exhibited during the Ferguson situation. Thirdly, it really goes to the training that the officers got if a video camera is simply the means to "wait for something stupid to happen."

I understand that you stand behind your police force as they have endured a great deal over the last couple of weeks, but what the chief doesn't understand is that if we have to protect ourselves by filming events to ensure that an unbiased witness (i.e. the camera) can correctly recall and otherwise ensure the integrity of the process, then there is no more doubts. Things can be taken out of context and reports can be skewed and twisted to whatever end. But it's not our fault that the police didn't exercise greater restraint.

Not when you have gems like this on your force:

In another incident, Glendale Officer Matthew Pappert was fired Thursday after posting on Facebook that Ferguson protesters should be "put down like rabid dogs" and asked where "is a Muslim with a backpack when you need them?"

 Don't blame us for your own internal hatred. Not my issue, it's yours former officer Pappert ....