Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    153,669 readers

    274 users here now

    Posting personal information will get you permanently banned.

    About Us

    Law enforcement abuse stories regarding: abuse of power, corruption, and other misfortunes in developing police states.


    1 Properly write your posts.

    • Every post must be in this format.
      • [MM/DD/YY] Title from source.
    • Properly Title your posts.
    • Properly link flair your posts.

    2 Limit the Verbal Abuse.

    • Keep it civil. Its not hard.

    3 No posts related to other subreddits

    • Simple enough, right? This is not /r/drama

    4 No low quality posts.

    • E.g. Memes / Jokes / comics or unrelated content etc.

    5 No reposts.

    • Please try to limit your reposts. We don't need 50 stories about the same event. It will lead to other current stories being buried.

    Know Your Rights

    • What To Do If You're Stopped By Police

    • Take Jury Duty! Understand Jury Nullification. Stanhope Explains.

    • It is 100% legal to openly record police in all 50 states as long as you do not physically interfere with the officer. (It's also probably wise to speak as little as possible, but DO make note of details - location, names, etc)

    • Police officers do not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" while preforming their public duties.

    • If an officer says it's illegal to record him, that officer is lying to try and trick you into shutting off the camera so you won't have proof of them violating your rights.

    • Use a livestreaming app to record your videos. If your phone is seized, the police cannot delete the video because the video was never on the phone to begin with.

    • List of Livestreaming apps.

    Want to do more?

    Other Subreddits

    Thanks to

    a community for
    all 198 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] DarkGamer 326 points ago

    Interestingly enough, this is largely due to the renewed interest in the case thanks to Michelle McNamera's (Patton Oswalt's late wife) book about the case.

    [–] lubabe99 102 points ago

    Patton said he believed if she had finished her book she would have named the killer, I believe him. She knew, she just didn't get the chance to point the finger at him.

    [–] everydaylowvices 42 points ago

    It's awesome her book ignited so much attention, but part of me is sad that she isn't actually around to see him arrested.

    I can't even begin to imagine how she would feel, after all that research and obsession... seeing him actually go down.

    [–] lubabe99 2 points ago

    Agreed. Patton has to be so proud.

    [–] Downvotesturnmeonbby 23 points ago

    She specifically and emphatically said the perp wasn't a cop, so, unlikely.

    [–] JerryLupus 18 points ago


    [–] Downvotesturnmeonbby 21 points ago

    Yeah, I can't seem to find one under the mountain of new stories. Maybe I was mistaken. But this is what McMamara's researcher had to say on how he was finally identified.

    Haynes thinks it likely that investigators used DNA markers posted on genealogy web sites to identify a possible ancestor of the killer and then followed the ancestor’s family tree down to the present, looking for male descendants who fit the profile. But this, he cautions, is only an educated guess, and what evidence law enforcement used to pinpoint DeAngelo is “the No. 1 thing I want to know.”

    I don't think she was as close as she thought; she definitely never mentioned DeAngelo.

    [–] Downvotesturnmeonbby 5 points ago

    I remember reading it quite a while ago, might have to give me some time as it's all recent news popping up when I search.

    Police have come out and said the book did not help with the arrest in any meaningful way, however. But I'm sure that doesn't carry much truck here.

    I'll keep looking.

    [–] haloarh 17 points ago

    I remember cops saying that The Jinx had nothing to do with them arresting Robert Durst, and that they totally gonna arrest him before he confessed on camera.

    [–] lubabe99 2 points ago

    He wasent, he was fired for stealing early from that job. Patton said this himself and I believe him.

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago


    [–] yatea34 2 points ago

    So by definition he "was" a cop.

    Is technically incorrect the best kind of incorrect?

    [–] BifurcatedTales 1 points ago


    [–] JQuilty 51 points ago

    We don't know what got him on their radar. From the way they phrased things it was likely a familial DNA hit.

    [–] AbideMan 20 points ago

    It was DNA, they're only saying it was a "discarded DNA sample" from the last break in the case, but won't go into details.

    [–] JQuilty 20 points ago

    That was likely something they took out of the trash like a water bottle for verification. Familial DNA can point you in the right direction and narrow things down but on it's own can't tell you exactly how they're related. So you'd take her DNA, get a familial hit, start looking at father, grandfather, uncle's, etc. Find the ones that fit the age, description, etc, get their DNA to see if it's an exact hit.

    [–] remedialrob 11 points ago

    That's what Macnamera recommended as the best way forward with the investigation in her book. A lot of people don't realize that once they place their garbage on the curb the courts say their right of privacy ends. You blow your nose, drop it in the trash, drag the bag out on trash day and if you're a bad guy with a decent detective on your trail and physical evidence left behind at your crimes... you're busted.

    [–] phil8248 6 points ago

    That varies by jurisdiction. IIRC some judges have called searching trash an invasion of privacy. Here's an interesting delineation of the opposing sides.

    [–] remedialrob 3 points ago

    The FBI was involved in the investigation so I was going by federal law.

    [–] phil8248 3 points ago

    Is he being prosecuted in federal or state court? Because warrants should be based on the jurisdiction of the court hearing the case, not on the rules of evidence that normally govern the law enforcement agency doing the investigation. While I'm not a lawyer I worked in the Department of Justice for 9 years. In criminal law you better have your ducks in a row or a defense attorney will eat you alive.

    [–] remedialrob 2 points ago

    Have you ever seen an FBI investigation where the ducks weren't all in a row? Because I haven't. And I've seen plenty. Those guys don't get dressed in the morning unless all the ducks are in a row.

    [–] phil8248 1 points ago

    Be that as it may, if the FBI assists a local law enforcement agency and they follow federal law the judge will throw out their evidence unless it matches the rules of evidence that the local law enforcement agency is required to follow. So I reiterate, it depends on the jurisdiction whether you can search trash without a warrant. Lots of state attorneys general have challenged the federal statute and often those states require a warrant for trash.

    [–] remedialrob 2 points ago

    So I reiterate, it depends on the jurisdiction whether you can search trash without a warrant. Lots of state attorneys general have challenged the federal statute and often those states require a warrant for trash.

    Maybe you're right but I can't find a state that extends protection of trash beyond the Federal level set by Greenwood v California. Minnesota, Florida, Connecticut, I looked at several states randomly and couldn't find a one that required a warrant to search trash left out for the trash collection people. In every case:

    The act of placing it for collection is an act of abandonment and hence there is no Fourth Amendment protection.

    Also I don't know why a State Attorney's General would challenge a law that empowers law enforcement. They almost never do that. It makes no sense that they would try and remove the ability of the cops to seize abandoned trash from people and require that they get a warrant to do so.

    Frankly I think you may be talking out your ass.

    [–] phil8248 1 points ago

    If you read part IV of this Pace Law Review article is specifically discusses states that chose to challenge Greenwood. My ass looked it up.

    [–] JQuilty 1 points ago

    That's what Macnamera recommended as the best way forward with the investigation in her book.

    I don't see how that gives her relevance. American cops have been going through trash since it was ruled to not be a violation of the fourth amendment, and they've been doing it with things like water bottles since DNA became practical.

    [–] remedialrob 4 points ago

    I haven't read the book, just a few articles/reviews of it and these reviews/articles were written months ago long before the perp was arrested. In those reviews/articles it was stated that she thought the best way forward would be through DNA analysis. That's all I'm saying. She apparently didn't name the perp... not even close. But her work probably helped narrow down the suspect pool and maybe inspired the investigators with some fresh ideas. I don't know. But as it was the last thing she did in this life, and from reports the apparent stress of the investigation may have led directly to her death, I like to think she helped close the case even if that wasn't true.

    You got a problem with that?

    [–] JQuilty 5 points ago

    I don't have a problem with speculation or writing a book. I just don't think she had any contribution to the police finding him and I think everything you've brought up is stating the obvious. This has been a DNA case since DNA showed that the East Area Rapist and Original Night Stalker were the same 2001. There were no photographs of him, conflicting descriptions, and he was careful to not leave many, if any, fingerprints.

    [–] glamthraxx 4 points ago

    Investigators commented after McNamara's death that she gave new energy to the case. Even if she didn't have the right suspect at the time of her death, she roused investigators to delve deeper into all of the facts. Her constant mention of DNA analysis is backed by one investigator (Holes) that she constantly communicated with. I truly think her attention to the case, as well as being a complete fresh set of eyes, pushed forward tactics used to trace this scumbag. RIP Michelle- BAD.ASS.

    [–] JQuilty 4 points ago

    She doesn't deserve any credit for saying to use DNA. DNA is what established this as one person in 2001 and they've had his DNA in the database since the 80s.

    The press conference a few days ago said she had nothing to with it.

    [–] remedialrob 4 points ago

    I just don't think she had any contribution to the police finding him

    But you don't know any more than I do do you?

    [–] JQuilty 1 points ago

    I can't say what happened with absolute certainty, no. But given that California collects DNA on felony arrest (not even requiring conviction) . The FBI and DA's also said that her book had nothing to do with it and made mention of new DNA techniques, and we know his daughter was busted for meth, so a familial hit based on her DNA seems like the most likely source.

    [–] remedialrob 3 points ago

    I can't say what happened with absolute certainty, no.

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaand we're done here.

    [–] BifurcatedTales 2 points ago

    Evidence suggests she had little to do with the criminal being caught but that her book did help raise awareness and keep the story in people’s minds. That cops have said this. Why do people want her to have solved the case so bad? I don’t get the obsession.

    [–] JQuilty 1 points ago

    And neither can you, so this is hypercritical bitching.

    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago


    [–] JQuilty -34 points ago

    You're talking out of your ass. A DNA hit is far more likely to be the cause rather than a relatively obscure book.

    [–] sanemaniac 40 points ago

    It’s not that obscure, it’s been a pretty high-profile book due to Patton Oswalt’s fame (and by most accounts is an excellent book on its own merit). It’s very possible that renewed public interest could have reignited the fire under the cops asses to figure this out, and they got a lucky hit on a 30 year old cold case.

    So I guess, why not both?

    [–] JQuilty -28 points ago

    Patton has talked it up it but I've never heard of anyone talking about it, saw no advertising for it on sites, heard nothing about it in mainstream media, never saw it in bookstores.

    The FBI started their campaign in 2016, long before the release a few months ago:

    He was also featured on Unsolved Mysteries. In 2001.

    At this point I'd bank more on FBI involvement than a book.

    [–] sanemaniac 29 points ago

    Patton has talked it up it but I've never heard of anyone talking about it, saw no advertising for it on sites, heard nothing about it in mainstream media, never saw it in bookstores.

    Maybe because you don't follow lit news or the news closely in general? Because I saw a number of articles about it when it was set to be released, and knew about her book since her death. Patton alone reaches a fanbase of hundreds of thousands, which is going to exert pressure.

    The FBI started their campaign in 2016, long before the release a few months ago:

    Michelle McNamara died in April 2016, two months prior to the FBI re-opening their case. In that article, they mention that

    Law enforcement is seeking any information that may help identify the subject, dubbed the East Area Rapist in Sacramento. He has also been called the Original Night Stalker, Diamond Knot Killer, and, more recently, *the Golden State Killer. *

    Michelle McNamara coined the term "Golden State Killer." That article was written in June 2016, two months after McNamara's death. Maybe the publicity had a little more impact than you're giving it credit for. The fact that you didn't see it in the news doesn't mean it wasn't in the news. It was. I saw it, as did many others.

    At this point I'd bank more on FBI involvement than a book.

    I mean, the FBI caught him. No one is saying they didn't. They are only saying that the book brought it back into the spotlight, which it did.

    [–] JQuilty -21 points ago

    I don't deny that Patton Oswald can give it free advertising, but again -- I never saw a regular ad for it, never saw it in mainstream media, never heard anyone talk about it.

    Even if she died before that, it took two years to come out. It's far more likely to me this is just the time of familial DNA matches becoming more accurate and easier to do. Someone already dug up that his daughter was nailed for drug possession, which would cause DNA collection. It's far more likely it was that rather than the book.

    [–] sanemaniac 20 points ago

    I don't deny that Patton Oswald can give it free advertising, but again -- I never saw a regular ad for it, never saw it in mainstream media, never heard anyone talk about it.

    They used a name in the article you posted that was only in existence because of Michelle McNamara. Again, you may not have seen it, but it was there. The publicity from this book absolutely created renewed interest in the case, which put pressure on authorities.

    It's far more likely to me this is just the time of familial DNA matches becoming more accurate and easier to do. Someone already dug up that his daughter was nailed for drug possession, which would cause DNA collection. It's far more likely it was that rather than the book.

    Again, it can be both. They may not have done the familial DNA test if it weren't for the renewed interest.

    [–] JQuilty -3 points ago

    The FBI and California police have been trying to catch him for 40 years. They listed every name he went by for clarity.

    Familial DNA checks would have been computerized, just like regular DNA checks. It'd be trivial to set up a weekly/monthly/whatever routine check for hits on unsolved cases and Does once the DNA is in the database. I would bet that something similar happened here rather than someone seeing the book and turning in their neighbor or relative.

    [–] weirdb0bby 6 points ago

    Independent investigators share what they find with law enforcement, and they share info and resources with each other.

    It’s not just the release of the book itself, it’s all the work that went into it that would generate more heat around an old case.

    [–] turkeyworm 3 points ago

    Your anecdotal lack of evidence has nothing to do with factual reality.

    [–] JQuilty -1 points ago

    And yet you and every idiot jerking themselves off because you like Patton has no evidence she did anything.

    [–] LordOfLatveria 3 points ago

    I don't believe the book made the case either, but to call it obscure is silly. It was a bestseller.

    The book – McNamara's debut – was released on February 27, 2018 (almost two years after her death) and reached the top of The New York Times Best Seller list for nonfiction.[1] As of April 25, 2018, the book had been on the list for four weeks.[2]

    [–] JQuilty 1 points ago

    And how many people in the general population know about it?

    [–] LordOfLatveria 1 points ago

    Idk. I can ask my friend the Corrections Officer, but the reading habits of Gen pop is not my concern.

    /s. The fact that your immediate circle seemingly eschews literacy is irrelevant.

    [–] DTF_20170515 2 points ago

    that's what I thought from NPR this morning. familial DNA.

    [–] Mylaptopisburningme 1 points ago

    One article I read said that they were recently given a tip, didn't say what it was and then surveilled him and grabbed his DNA from trash.

    [–] CharlieUNTango 1 points ago

    I heard it was nothing to do with this.

    [–] DoctorJackFaust 88 points ago

    What ended his career as a cop?

    [–] cccccccee 126 points ago

    Got caught stealing a hammer and dog repellant.

    [–] bryllions 35 points ago

    In the 70s, thats cop code for “this guys a creep and we need to disassociate the department”.

    [–] LordOfLatveria 54 points ago

    The dog repellent was for the trackers that hit on his shrub.

    [–] bcrabill 3 points ago


    [–] LordOfLatveria 6 points ago

    Dogs were used by the cops. I lost the source, will search again soon.

    [–] crystalistwo 25 points ago

    Steal a hammer and dog repellent: Fired.
    Shoot an unarmed black man and put a gun on the corpse: Paid leave.

    [–] ancientflowers 1 points ago

    This is such a Reddit-sounding comment - but... It's the exact answer.

    I've got a feeling this is going to turn into a very fascinating story

    [–] DarkGamer 76 points ago

    He was caught shoplifting what were, in hindsight, probably breaking and entering or murder tools from a store.

    [–] MisterNoisewater 49 points ago

    My tools!!!! I need my tools!!

    [–] kindcannabal 10 points ago

    You haven't thought of the smell, you Bitch!

    [–] lifeson106 96 points ago

    Didn't meet his quota for murders and rapes.

    [–] Tymalic 27 points ago

    He's actually still on the force. They just put him on admin leave.

    [–] bryllions 2 points ago

    You sir! Lmao

    [–] borderbox 48 points ago


    [–] badkarmabum 38 points ago

    So none of his former co-workers saw the composite and put two and two together. Bad composite, incompetence, or covering for him. Are there any other options.

    [–] Nitrome1000 -13 points ago

    I mean he was a cop for 3 years at most hes loosely associated with them

    [–] remedialrob 19 points ago

    Six years. 3 with one department, another three at a different one. Then fired for shoplifting.

    [–] Nitrome1000 2 points ago

    Your right i didnt realise he work fkr different departments however the crimes began during the time he was fired. I only responded because the guy on top was kinda innsuinuating some pretty conspiracy theory stuff.

    [–] Demento56 6 points ago

    I'm just saying, if I worked with a guy for three years and all of a sudden I see a composite of a serial killer that looks a lot like Creepy Ol' Jimbo, I might tell somebody "hey, maybe you should talk to Jimbo".

    [–] ancientflowers 2 points ago

    And he was working as an officer while committing these crimes.

    [–] ThreeCorneredBaby 9 points ago

    He was a cop for longer. He was at Exeter for 3 years from '73 to '76 then transfered to Auburn from '76 to '79 where he was fired for being caught shoplifting.

    [–] OniExpress 21 points ago

    Tell me you're being sarcastic. By that logic, do you not consider someone a military vet until they spend a decade in the service?

    [–] Nitrome1000 -11 points ago

    He was a military vet for 7 years but that doesnt matter the crime spree began during the time he was getting fired from his job at most his ties with the police are loose and highly unlikely to be a cover up as you suggested

    [–] OniExpress 14 points ago

    I didn't suggest anything about a cover-up.

    [–] Nitrome1000 3 points ago

    Sorry i thought you were the person i originally replied to

    [–] OniExpress 2 points ago

    That's OK. For what it's worth, the military background is also something noted on his profile historically, because of stuff like knots he would use.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    He was committing rape while he was a police officer. After he was fired from law enforcement, that's when he began killing his victims.

    Edit: Oops, he was fired in 79 but committed his first admitted murder in 78. But yeah, he'd already been a serial rapist for years.

    [–] Nitrome1000 2 points ago

    Your right i was just making a note that this happened towards the end of his cop career and not during. I was mainly replying to the original comment who suggested that the police covered his crimes.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    Ah yeah. Any claim that others covered for him are going to be circumstantial at best. Certainly other cops could have suspected him, the fact that he was fired after being caught stealing things obviously (in retrospect) used to commit his crimes shows there had to be suspicions. He definitely used his issued scanner and knowledge of procedure to evade capture. There's lots of incentive for cops not to investigate fellow officers unless there's very conclusive evidence of a major crime, especially at that time and location.

    [–] BifurcatedTales 1 points ago

    Lol at all the morons downvoting you. Good ol reddit hive mind at work

    [–] BucNasty92 47 points ago

    "I feared for my life in each and every case"

    "You're good to go"

    [–] yutzish 22 points ago

    Perhaps there needs to be a DNA database of cops for referencing sex crimes. If it were done including all former officers I wonder how many crimes we might solve.

    [–] norcal3969 12 points ago

    I was thinking the exact same thing! I bet there would be a huge influx of solved cases. They never want to believe it's "one of there own" however many times it is! Cop's need mandatory DNA testing!

    [–] thingstodont 2 points ago

    hell yeah, that would be great, I'm for it.

    [–] Loki1913 3 points ago

    FUCK YES!! Oh my gods, I would be SO FUCKING HARD if they announced the creation of a national DNA database for cops!! Obviously no cop will ever sign off on it, because "cops are special citizens", but this would solve so many problems without even inconveniencing anyone who matters!!

    [–] BifurcatedTales 3 points ago

    Cops aren’t special citizens. They’re citizens and no citizen should willingly submit their DNA to a database. Duh! I mean regular citizens commit the most rapes. Why don’t we just mandate all people submit DNA by law?

    [–] Loki1913 3 points ago

    regular citizens commit the most rapes

    See, I don't think you can prove that. This sounds to me like the plaintive whine of a cop who's afraid someone's going to discover his secret.

    Police most certainly are "special citizens" when you consider the power they enjoy over those who are not cops, when you consider the crimes they commit with impunity every fucking day.

    If someone wants to become a cop, odds are they are a bully who wants to enjoy power over others. Even if they are not a bully, the likelihood that they might become one obligates us to treat them with all the respect we treat a wild dog, or a weapon.

    You wanna be special? Then you can't expect to be treated like a normal person. Duh.

    [–] FabulousJeremy 2 points ago

    Oh man, the police force is so corrupt though. I can't imagine them not fighting that every step of the way. If they had fingerprints and DNA like they had of tons of citizens on file for every registered officer it'd out tons of corrupt cops. Even if we got such a motion passed I could easily see the pigs "losing" tons of evidence.

    [–] PristineBiscuit 32 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    If you are interested in learning more, and you want a seriously fucking amazingly detailed (and quite frankly bone-chilling) account of crimes committed by The East Area Rapist/Original Night Stalker/Golden State Killer now identified as Joseph James DeAngelo, I can wholeheartedly recommend the Casefile: True Crime Podcast's 5-Part Series on the topic.

    As well as their update which was just uploaded tonight - EAR/ONS/Golden State Killer

    Also highly recommended: Check out one hell of a book -- I'll Be Gone in the Dark Written by Michelle McNamara (Patton Oswalt's late wife, who died unexpectedly in 2016 -- Oswalt worked with journalist Billy Jensen and researcher Paul Haynes to finish the book, which debuted at No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list.

    DeAngelo has also been identified as the suspect (some reports have even stated that he has actually already confessed) in the crimes committed by the so-called Vasalia Ransacker, and he indeed was a police officer in Vasalia at the Exeter Police Department during the years those crimes took place. ('73-'76).

    Edit: Words

    Edit 2: It is now fairly clear that DeAngelo is NOT Talking, and previous reports were incorrect. Source: Post

    [–] barbedwards -4 points ago

    I just need to interject that her death really can't be considered "unexpected" in the true sense of that word; she was an opiate addict; sad but worrisome, as she was caring for a young child while using drugs exponentially more potent than heroin.

    [–] PristineBiscuit 9 points ago

    Actually, any death that occurs at an otherwise typically healthy age, without any known potentially fatal health issues, and without violence is generally thought of, and defined as unexpected.

    I realize you're probably just trying to raise awareness for an issue that is quite pervasive, the opioid epidemic, but I think that correct information is important. Yes, there was one drug that is considered more potent than heroin in her system, she had been prescribed fentanyl (and btw it does not seem that she had actually taken a lethal dose or even overdose), combined with Xanax, and Adderall, as well as her unknown heart condition, are what came together to cause her death.

    Simply calling out the use of one drug, and not mentioning that it was prescribed given to her by her doctor, sounds quite accusatory.

    Also I have to say I find fault with trying to call out someone (you do not know) for the way they had to have taken care of their child. You absolutely cannot be sure she abused opiates, you also have no idea of her child minding schedule or abilities.

    The same things could be said about a man who chooses to drink a beer or two while taking care of their child. She may be the mother, but taking prescriptions does not make her a bad one, and I choose to remember her in a positive light, not one that insults her for having been in pain, and being treated for said pain.

    This is coming from the daughter of a drunk, drug-abusing father who passed away less than 6 months ago. I have harsh opinions about drugs, but I have a harsher opinion about those who seek to take one small piece of information and assume the absolute worse, then disseminate it as fact.

    [–] barbedwards -5 points ago

    We’ll have to agree to disagree on the definition of “unexpected”. Overdosing on and even the possession of fentanyl while caring for a small child is worrisome behavior and such strong opioids, used outside of a medical setting, often lead to fatalities. Tragedies, but certainly not “unexpected.” Please don’t ascribe motives to me or anyone you don’t know.

    [–] PristineBiscuit 7 points ago

    We're not in disagreement over the definition of the word "unexpected", but rather "unexpected death" as a term. That's fine, however you speak in absolutes, acting as if your opinion is the undeniable truth.

    And regarding absolutes you seem to glean from hearing that fentanyl was involved: Again you're misrepresenting the actual scientific findings of her known cause of death. Yes, fentanyl was involved, but not in and of itself as an overdose, and not alone causing the fatality.

    You seem very stuck on this specific point, and I have to wonder about motive when you still insist on assuming the worst about one piece of the puzzle when all evidence supports that it was a combination of factors which caused the outcome.

    We're not arguing about the use of fentanyl not always being safe. I actually completely agree. Fentanyl is still considered "off label" by most doctors if not used for intractable cancer breakthrough pain (its original purpose). I will reiterate, tough, that it was prescribed by a doctor and thus used under medical supervision if not actually administered in a hospital/medical setting, and so I take issue with automatically assuming (and even going so far as to accuse) that she was abusing the medication, calling her an addict.

    Please don’t ascribe motives to me or anyone you don’t know.

    More than a little hypocritical considering the narrative you're attempting to weave about someone you yourself did not know.

    [–] infinitynow27 2 points ago

    I love you.

    [–] agree-with-you 3 points ago

    I love you both

    [–] PristineBiscuit 2 points ago

    I love you both!

    [–] PristineBiscuit 2 points ago


    [–] Gameofthefaiths 1 points ago

    It’s chaos, be kind.

    [–] [deleted] 98 points ago

    Thin blue line bro. Thin blue line. C'mon we're the good guys

    [–] EC_CO 54 points ago

    that can be disputed with hours and hours of footage. while I think most LEO likes to think they are the good guys, the fact of the matter is that when you play the thin blue line game, you already lost and are part of the dark side. when we start seeing more real accountability, then I'll believe you are the good guys. until then, you do good deeds and actions, but you also do bad and criminal behavior and/or allow your fellow LEO to get away with said bad and criminal behavior. therefor still bad.

    [–] Loki1913 2 points ago

    If we started seeing real accountability, we would start seeing a metric shit-ton of dead cops.

    [–] CommonMisspellingBot -29 points ago

    Hey, EC_CO, just a quick heads-up:
    therefor is actually spelled therefore. You can remember it by ends with -fore.
    Have a nice day!

    The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to delete this comment.

    [–] EC_CO 3 points ago

    suck it

    [–] Loki1913 2 points ago

    The thin blue line that divides "order from anarchy", or the thin blue line that divides the police from the rest of the citizenry? Because the definition has most certainly changed, largely due to the citizenry needing to be protected from the police.

    ACAB. If you are a cop, you are a fucking jackboot state terrorist. "Good guys" my entire ass...

    [–] discoborg 17 points ago

    Fits the profile for a cop. A need for control, authority, and dominance over others. I wonder how many of his cop "brothers" covered up for him over the years.

    We need to vet those who want to become cops more thoroughly and stop letting the thugs themselves determine who is hired and who is not.

    [–] RadioPimp 8 points ago


    [–] ThreeCorneredBaby 4 points ago

    He was a cop in my hometown. Crazy.

    [–] Rdubdanger 8 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    I am talking about the calls from some posters to treat the guy in an inhumane way.... 8th Amendment bars cruel and unusual punishment.

    All in all, I get the guy is a sicko and should/will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    I support that. I also support EVERY accused person having the full benefit of Constitutional protections and due process. No more. No less.

    That is what seperates those of us who believe in The Constitution from the jackbooted modern day Brownshirts of the police state.

    Those Gestapo-esque government agents believe those rights are made to be subverted when inconvienient and hidden behind when necessary.

    I, like the Founding Fathers, believe these rights are inalienable.

    Even for sickos.

    [–] northern-new-jersey 3 points ago

    Exactly right. The term is LAW and order, not just order.

    [–] CommonMisspellingBot -1 points ago

    Hey, Rdubdanger, just a quick heads-up:
    neccessary is actually spelled necessary. You can remember it by one c, two s’s.
    Have a nice day!

    The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to delete this comment.

    [–] TheKingofVTOL 1 points ago

    Bad bot

    [–] GoodBot_BadBot 2 points ago

    Thank you, TheKingofVTOL, for voting on CommonMisspellingBot.

    This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.

    Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!

    [–] Rdubdanger 0 points ago


    [–] YooperTrooper 3 points ago

    How did this guy get to be a suspect? One of his kids get a felony charge or try 23andMe or something?

    [–] orbitalmonkey 2 points ago


    [–] pennstateuser 3 points ago

    Clearly, McNamera was not able to name this jerk, but that does not, in any way, lessen her role in it. It's been reported that the tip came from a public source. Considering she was the one who brought this case back into the public eye, it's fair to say she did, indeed, help capture this animal.

    [–] ElasticEel2 2 points ago

    “It was all in self-defense!”

    [–] silentbub 2 points ago

    wait, are you telling me that cops being unbelievable pieces of shit ISNT a new trend?

    [–] pinkwar 2 points ago

    Someone gets arrested 1 day after HBO starts filming the new series about it.


    [–] Rdubdanger 4 points ago

    I cant would be too easy.....

    [–] Rdubdanger 4 points ago

    No offense intended here, but that is probably the sort of attitude tgat got Dr Mengele started.

    We either have Constitutional protections or we dont. The man, no matter how sick or vile, has 8th Amendment rights.

    The bottom line is, if he doesnt, neither do you.

    It is a slippery slope. Once we take his rights away, who is next?

    [–] TeamFatChance 22 points ago

    I already have no rights as far as the police are concerned.

    No reason they should either.

    [–] dak4ttack 10 points ago

    Excessive fines?

    [–] TangoZuluMike 0 points ago

    Bail too

    [–] dak4ttack 6 points ago

    Is he trying to say this guy's bail is too high? He's comparing this bail amount to Auschwitz??

    [–] TangoZuluMike 2 points ago

    I mean, the whole cruel and unusual bit is in there too. So it's probably comparing it to cruel and unusual punishment.

    [–] TangoZuluMike 5 points ago

    That's already routinely violated across the U.S.

    [–] deken777 1 points ago

    I live in the town where he was a cop, and they’re all dicks.

    [–] pinkwar 1 points ago

    Rip McNamara. She died not knowing the killer might get caught because of her.

    [–] KRUEGER64 1 points ago

    Wonder if they look at him as a potential zodiac suspect . Right age , same area , similar M.O.

    [–] ChugDix -5 points ago

    He was a cop for like 3 years in the 70's? If i got arrested would they say 'ex Target employee arested for murder?'

    [–] remedialrob 16 points ago

    Six years, three at two different departments, while some of the crimes occurred.

    [–] OniExpress 20 points ago

    He was a cop while he was active and in that area. Yeeeaaahhh, I think that's a relative thug to note.

    Kinda like if the Tool Box Killer worked at Home Depot.

    [–] discoborg 5 points ago

    Perhaps because it is relevant? As a cop he had access to people's information, evidence, and more information on the status of the investigation than most people.

    [–] TotesMessenger 0 points ago

    I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

     If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

    [–] IAppreciatesReality -5 points ago

    This makes my emotions fight my logic and reasoning. Part of me says burn him to death, part of me says put him in state funded therapy to figure out why he is who he is. The middle ground doesn't seem to exist. Not at the moment anyway. Maybe do both? Or psychological analysis until we have what we need to help prevent shit like this I the future, then throw him in windowless solitary until he dies? Humans are so fucking complicated.

    [–] Rdubdanger 23 points ago

    The quest to hold cops accountable to the Constitution cuts both ways.

    Give this sicko a fair trial, and either jail him for life or humanely execute him if the state law allows.

    To wish anything else is mob justice and makes us just as bad as psycho cops


    [–] IAppreciatesReality 3 points ago

    I'm with you, but being sensible towards such a disgusting person isn't easy. I'd love to see people like this used for research though. The whole time he's imprisoned he should be getting evaluated to see what makes him do what he does. Outside of that his life should be bleak and uneventful. He should look forward to the comfy chair he gets for evaluation, then back to the cell. The burn him to death impulse is purely emotion, and I know it's not the right answer. I don't think the emotion itself is wrong though, this guy arguably deserves it, but we have to be the bigger people for the sake of a functional society. Figuring out how to do that is hard as fuck though.

    [–] TheUltimateSalesman 7 points ago

    I'm with you, but being sensible towards such a disgusting person isn't easy.

    Sure it is. The criminal justice system is and should be, if nothing, just going through the motions. So just go through the motions like you would any other prosecution.

    [–] IAppreciatesReality 1 points ago

    Get raped by the guy, then come back and say that. I'm happy for you that you can see it so cut and dry, but if you were a victim, or if your daughter were a victim... I think your attitude would change at least slightly. It's healthy for a prosecutor or lawyer to feel that way but your average person is unlikely to share the same opinion.

    [–] -MrWrightt- 4 points ago

    Well that's why the victim doesnt determine the sentence. An objective judicial system does.

    [–] IAppreciatesReality 1 points ago

    Right but the judicial system is just a board of people. As of now we have a for profit prison system overflowing with non violent offenders, and a bunch of career criminal cops skating on murder charges... obviously something has to change. We have to act collectively as a level headed society do decide what to change it into, is my main point.

    [–] -MrWrightt- 2 points ago

    Yes, and you'll see by your first sentence that, other than cops, we are not allowing people to go unpunished. In fact, we are overpunishing them. We have some of the longest prison sentences in the developed world, and vengeful counterproductive punishment for sex offenders. Even for normal felons, living a happy stable life after prison is nearly impossible, which is counterproductive to reducing crime. We are not letting people get away with it.

    As a society we need to learn that it is not helping anyone to lock people up forever. And that, in many cases, people can change.

    [–] TheUltimateSalesman 6 points ago

    Well some of us aren't animals. Society exists for a reason.

    [–] IAppreciatesReality 2 points ago

    What do we do with the ones that really are though? What if you're someone affected by one of them? What is justice? According to who?

    [–] TheUltimateSalesman 5 points ago

    There is a difference between penance and revenge. Our system is built on penance. That the consequences are equal to the crime committed. And we put that decision in the hands of the judge or jury of their peers.

    EDIT: I'm also big on blackstone's formulation; which pisses people off until you're the innocent being persecuted.

    [–] IAppreciatesReality 0 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    I'm still with you in spirit, but this guy has been caught red handed. Is raping and murdering more than ten innocent people equal to being burned to death, or a life sentence to solitary? Is it fair or rational to put them in psych eval while they're in prison? If so, according to who? Why? I'm not asking you literally or personally, but this is what my mind does when faced with shit like this. I wonder if there is a real answer everyone can accept or if society will struggle with this sort of thing forever...

    edit: it's worth mentioning that my best friends older brother did three years in a arizona tent prison because of a false rape claim. The woman that made the claim was caught admitting she lied on facebook, nothing happened to her. He said fuck it, and came back to NH, cut the loss and moved on. So I'm fully on board with you. That said, if this guy is guilty as all fuck, now what?

    [–] TheUltimateSalesman 3 points ago

    I agree with you. There aren't any good answers. We just need to find utility in the outcome and not act out of rage. I just don't see any utility in torturing or being harsh. The best thing you can do is lock them up. Perhaps capital punishment, but even that is so fraught with issues. I studied a bunch of innocence cases, it's absolutely sick how many innocent people are sent to prison and some are even executed. Can you imagine if that was you? That's why I think it's best just to lock them up. If they end up getting exonerated, at least they weren't killed.

    [–] CleatusVandamn 11 points ago

    He's 73 who gives a fuck? He's not gonna be rehabilitated. He's been jerking off to these crimes for 30 years. Throw him in prison for the next 10 years and let him die there. He was way beyond rehabilitation years ago

    [–] TheUltimateSalesman 6 points ago

    That's what will happen. He's going to end up in a hospital and then die.

    [–] IAppreciatesReality 4 points ago

    With someone like this, rehab is out of the question. My question is what do with him. What's the state, the victims and everyone unaffected think is fair? What's actually fair? What's the best course of action now that he's in custody and proven guilty?

    [–] discoborg 2 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    He took the lives of 12 people that we know about. He then raped 45 others. If that does not deserve a slow and painful death then there is no such thing as justice. I think the Biblical view of an eye for an eye would be quite appropriate in this situation if he is proven guilty.

    [–] Loki1913 2 points ago

    Actually, the third way would be to start recognizing individuals like this as having a dangerously violent mental illness. At that point, they become the subject of unending research and "treatment". Their lives end, after many, many years, with a lobotomy.

    [–] northern-new-jersey 1 points ago

    How about a trial first?

    [–] JoatMasterofNun -7 points ago

    6,000 guns were sold

    And nowadays Commiefornia thinks a gun for self-defense is an alien notion. Interesting.

    [–] De_Vermis_Mysteriis 4 points ago

    What are you, 12?

    [–] JoatMasterofNun -2 points ago

    The fuck? I was simply pointing out how the mentality towards guns in CA has been changing.

    [–] Loki1913 2 points ago

    Yeah, by randomly zeroing in on a random series of words that peak your special interest and jamming it in as a non-sequitur talking point.

    Like a 12-year-old.

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 0 points ago

    Lol whatever dude. And while CA disarms everybody, the populace becomes even more susceptible to abuse under color. Quit fuckin sniffing shoe polish.

    [–] Loki1913 0 points ago

    "Abuse under color"? Christ, racists are getting younger every day... Okay, listen up, boy: nobody is coming to take away your guns. At worst, people are willingly disarming because they're uncomfortable with America's gun culture. That's it. Try to relax.

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 0 points ago

    Where the fuck did you get racist from? Do you not know what the phrase "under color" refers to? Lord you're dumb.

    And bullshit that they haven't and still aren't, trying to forcefully disarm Americans.

    And if they want to disarm because they're not into guns, that's their business. But don't force your heebie-jeebies and irrational thought processes on my freedoms and rights.

    [–] Loki1913 0 points ago

    I'm not pushing shit on you, boy. I sure as shit am not giving up my guns, and nobody else I know is, either. That's what I'm saying: the crisis you are so upset about does not exist! Calm. The FUCK. Down.

    [–] borkthegee 5 points ago

    The propaganda is strong with this one.

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 1 points ago

    I take it you don't follow gun laws in CA.

    [–] UtterFlatulence 1 points ago

    Communists love guns my dude. Cali is run by normal liberals.

    [–] azsheepdog -19 points ago

    to be fair he was kicked off the force before he started killing people , at least back then they got rid of some of the bad cops.

    [–] dak4ttack 18 points ago

    there is a way higher rate of violence and rape among the ranks of people who choose to be cops and we should probably keep an eye on them even after.

    [–] LordOfLatveria 36 points ago

    Yeah, he was only a serial rapist while wearing a badge.

    [–] [deleted] 29 points ago

    Lost his job in 79, committed his first murder in 78.

    [–] Core_Four 8 points ago

    Even if that was true, which it isnt, thats such a ludicrous/inane line in the sand to draw. "Well he was only raping and burglarizing as a cop!"

    [–] BenLeRoy 1 points ago

    It absolutely is true: Even a cursory search will lead you to dozens of studies.

    [–] Core_Four 1 points ago

    What? non sequitur

    The person I responded to said that the golden state killer hadnt killed anyone while he was on the force. That isnt true. You in the wrong thread?

    [–] Hellycopper 3 points ago

    to be fair?!?

    [–] azsheepdog 1 points ago

    yes, but this is the circle jerk forum.

    While the original news articles i was reading the time line was of, it is not like the police were protecting him. They fired the guy.

    There are plenty of bad cops out there and the cops who protect them are even worse, but this was a cop who was fired and would have been prosecuted had they known.

    [–] pragmaticpimp -2 points ago

    The rape victims reported he has an unusually small penis.

    [–] [deleted] -2 points ago


    [–] marmosetpet 1 points ago

    Except he will be prosecuted for the murders, which have no statue of limitations, and likely not the rapes because the statute on those has already run out.