I am a college student studying Criminal Justice and so am always searching YouTube for police in action types of videos. A majority of the results when you type in, say "police shootout" or "police arrest" or something end up being about how all cops are pigs who should all die and what not.
I am very appreciative of police and the work they do for us. Now, I realize that police brutality exists, but am also keen enough to realize how isolated it actually is and how quickly liberal media scoops up stories and go to town with them. This is really beginning to get on my nerves!
Every business has bad seeds, yet I don't see people dubbing every coach a child molester after this UPenn incident or every foorball player a dog abuser after Vick.
I think America should be more respective of police in general. End rant.
Dunno, soldiers seem to get more respect, locally speaking, than cops do. Mind you, this is often because of the inconsistency of cops between various parts of a county-- such as a suburbian region's cops being far more strict than a downtown region's cops. It gets people annoyed at them, and understandably so-- but in the end I think people still generally side with cops over criminals at least...
Im not trying to make any claims but, atleast from youtube comments, it does seem like there are a high % of Americans that dislike cop / police. I would like to know why, im sure they cant be THAT bad or corrupted?
The only reason that someone once told me was...
"people dont like to get caught, it doesnt matter to them whats right or wrong, and police are the agents that stops them"
Soldiers goes off and fight other people for you. Cops enforce the local laws Against you, which is when people get mad.
I myself have never had a bad experience with a cop, even during one of the multiple times I've been pulled over. I appreciate the work they do to keep the rest of us safe.
CT GAMER wrote:The internet is not representative of the majority.
people with a gripe or personal agenda make youtube videos, start blogs, and try to find an audience any way they can.
Look at the foolishness that gets posted in this very OT by some people. Most of it is not the majority opinion...
Tired of cop bashing? Find something more productive to do then watching yourtube videos me thinks...
Nah, I think OP and me included has the right to be concerned. Like what has gone wrong to end up this way?
Police are just doing their jobs, what happened to make people dislike them...? Are the culture different now where the criminal % are so
high that its "common" to dislike cops?
Aduro wrote:Soldiers goes off and fight other people for you. Cops enforce the local laws Against you, which is when people get mad.
I myself have never had a bad experience with a cop, even during one of the multiple times I've been pulled over. I appreciate the work they do to keep the rest of us safe.
I agree with you for the pull over thing. Its funny the guy i talked to also used similar example. Him on the other hand says cops is bad because they gave him the ticket.
Dunno, I liked the cops more than I did the school authorities the last time I dealt with either. At least the cops tended to be reasonable about things...
CT GAMER wrote:The internet is not representative of the majority.
people with a gripe or personal agenda make youtube videos, start blogs, and try to find an audience any way they can.
Look at the foolishness that gets posted in this very OT by some people. Most of it is not the majority opinion...
Tired of cop bashing? Find something more productive to do then watching yourtube videos me thinks...
Nah, I think OP and me included has the right to be concerned. Like what has gone wrong to end up this way?
Police are just doing their jobs, what happened to make people dislike them...? Are the culture different now where the criminal % are so
high that its "common" to dislike cops?
Aduro wrote:Soldiers goes off and fight other people for you. Cops enforce the local laws Against you, which is when people get mad.
I myself have never had a bad experience with a cop, even during one of the multiple times I've been pulled over. I appreciate the work they do to keep the rest of us safe.
I agree with you for the pull over thing. Its funny the guy i talked to also used similar example. Him on the other hand says cops is bad because they gave him the ticket.
It's not, IMO, a question of "disliking" cops, it's about disliking individules who abuse the authority they have been granted...and before people start ranting that it's a " tough job", I'm quite aware of that fact...however, if a person can't do that " tough job" with out resorting to jack boot tactics...then perhaps they should find another line of work.
Most countries experience with the United States is either through troops being station there. Its quite interesting to see soldiers who go "back on the block" mentality over the weekend and come monday rip them a new one. It was hammered into me on my first tour to South Korea that we are the first the impression that the locals have on the US. Law Enforcement on the other hand are the ones who are first responders to a situation but the problem is. They have no idea what they are walking into to and prepare to walk into a worst case scenario. Military does it for 12 months on combat tour and have 12 months off from combat tour.
Most police around military installations are more worried when they know the situation they're walking in to involves a soldier. One never know what the soldier is going to do
I'm going to have to agree with LunaHound. While YouTube is obviously not a very productive or representative site, I still see a huge amount of disrespect for cops in the media and around town.
The media nowadays has no sense of country, only for finding a niche, fitting in with the mainstream, and making money. In 1940's and 1950's America, reporters knew when to keep their mouths shut and let some things get swept under the rug for the interest and continual advancement of the country. Now, when a Navy SEAL, fighting insurgents and seeing the atrocities they inflict upon US soldiers and Afghani civilians gives a Taliban fighter a little love tap, he is court martialed and swamped by the media. Cameras, fake tans, and botox being shoved in his face, he must defend himself for defending us. There's the classic story of Patton visiting the field hospital during WWII and exploding on a traumatized solider (lulz) because he had no external wounds. (Of course we now know about PTSD). But the news personnel with Patton on his visit made no note of Patton's poor judgment, maintaining his public integrity so he could focus fully on his enormous task of defeating the Germans.
LunaHound wrote: Like what has gone wrong to end up this way?
Police are just doing their jobs, what happened to make people dislike them...? Are the culture different now where the criminal % are so
high that its "common" to dislike cops?
The advance of technology, the internet, cell phone cameras, and various other communication tech has made it very easy to spread info/video/etc.
So while I woud imagine the amount of police corruption/brutality/etc. is probably less then it was in the past, the ability to bring attention to it in a viral way when it does happen (or someone feels like making such a claim) gives the impression of many people disliking cops, when in fact I don't think this is the case at all.
Bottom line: Too many people spend too much time putting stupidity up on youtube/blogs/message boards; and worse yet too many people read it...
YouTube is going to have more videos of cops being bad, than cops being good for the same reason that you are more likely to see negative reviews than positive reviews on the internet.
People expect cops to be good, so why would they make videos of good cops doing what they are supposed to be doing and posting them on the internet? Why would you go out of your way to showcase good cops if that is their job?
People are not going to go out of their way to post a review of a restaurant saying "the food was ok, price was fair, waitress was nice" since that is what we would expect from EVERY visit. If the service is crap or the food is crap then we are going to rant about it.
For that same reason, cops being bad on the internet is not a representative example of cops being bad in real life.
With that said, I have a big issue with cops throwing a fit about being videotaped. They are in public, they work for the public, they are accountable for the public. If you are a good cop, then you should not be worried about the public watching what you are doing. The usual excuse is "they feel pressure about being caught screwing up, and are more likely to make a mistake". Tough, if there is a cop driving behind me I feel pressure about being caught driving stupid and if I make a mistake you bet the cop is going to jump on that and write me a ticket. Which I deserve for doing something wrong.
Just as a cop deserves to be punished for screwing up.
FITZZ wrote:
It's not, IMO, a question of "disliking" cops, it's about disliking individules who abuse the authority they have been granted...and before people start ranting that it's a " tough job", I'm quite aware of that fact...however, if a person can't do that " tough job" with out resorting to jack boot tactics...then perhaps they should find another line of work.
Is it abusing authority if an ambulance driver happens to turn on the lights and sirens in order to get across an intersection and pull into a KFC drive thru? That single act made me want to be an EMT immediately because with the flick of a switch you can get to fast food places faster. Oh, and helping people is alright too.
The cops around here vary by season, during the summer they're more tense thanks to tourists coming from all over the place and flooding the local area. During the winter and off-season they're much more calm about things, I personally have never had a bad experience with an officer and in fact they usually let me off the hook with a warning or speak on my behalf at court. When I rear-ended a guy the officer who wrote me up actually helped me out as a character witness by omitting the fact that I had told him I was turning off my cellphone in his report. Note: It was a low speed collision with no injuries, although the guy's trailer hitch went in pretty far. Let's just say that he actually towed me off of the road and onto the grass.
There's the classic story of Patton visiting the field hospital during WWII and exploding on a traumatized solider (lulz) because he had no external wounds. (Of course we now know about PTSD). But the news personnel with Patton on his visit made no note of Patton's poor judgment, maintaining his public integrity so he could focus fully on his enormous task of defeating the Germans.
He slapped the soldier a few time to. He later apoligized to the soldier for that incident.
I am also tired of all the cop bashing, My fist are all sore and bruised.
No real problem with cops but I gotta be honest I think police in OZ are far more professional then the American police force.
And to be fair ive numerous run ins with police and they have a habbit of taking my licence of me and most of them seemed easy to deal with and one even gave me a break for stopping (I ride sportsbiles stopping for police is optional)
FITZZ wrote:
It's not, IMO, a question of "disliking" cops, it's about disliking individules who abuse the authority they have been granted...and before people start ranting that it's a " tough job", I'm quite aware of that fact...however, if a person can't do that " tough job" with out resorting to jack boot tactics...then perhaps they should find another line of work.
Is it abusing authority if an ambulance driver happens to turn on the lights and sirens in order to get across an intersection and pull into a KFC drive thru? That single act made me want to be an EMT immediately because with the flick of a switch you can get to fast food places faster. Oh, and helping people is alright too.
The cops around here vary by season, during the summer they're more tense thanks to tourists coming from all over the place and flooding the local area. During the winter and off-season they're much more calm about things, I personally have never had a bad experience with an officer and in fact they usually let me off the hook with a warning or speak on my behalf at court. When I rear-ended a guy the officer who wrote me up actually helped me out as a character witness by omitting the fact that I had told him I was turning off my cellphone in his report. Note: It was a low speed collision with no injuries, although the guy's trailer hitch went in pretty far. Let's just say that he actually towed me off of the road and onto the grass.
No, if the EMT was going for the mashed potato and gravy and extra crispy, his "misuse" of emergency signaling can be overlooked, I'd grant the police the same sort of " amnesty" when the " hot donut" light is flashing at Krispy Kreme.
There's the classic story of Patton visiting the field hospital during WWII and exploding on a traumatized solider (lulz) because he had no external wounds. (Of course we now know about PTSD). But the news personnel with Patton on his visit made no note of Patton's poor judgment, maintaining his public integrity so he could focus fully on his enormous task of defeating the Germans.
He slapped the soldier a few time to. He later apoligized to the soldier for that incident.
Patton was something different. Also, the media was censored during WW2 unlike Vietnam where people at home saw everything that was recorded. Had WW2 been filmed and broadcast like Vietnam was I can almost guarantee that Patton wouldn't have to worry about his public image or the Germans, we probably would've backed out of the war thanks to diminishing support amongst the populace.
Also, the media was censored during WW2 unlike Vietnam
WWII the reporters had to wire their news back home. So vast majority of the "wire" were in military headquarters was run by the military. Veitnam era the video took right off and most news centers had offices incountry I believe.
Also, the media was censored during WW2 unlike Vietnam
WWII the reporters had to wire their news back home. So vast majority of the "wire" were in military headquarters was run by the military. Veitnam era the video took right off and most news centers had offices incountry I believe.
Yes, but any video they did record was chosen to be shown because its a lot better to show the happy GIs conquering the evil jackboots than it is to show a beach covered with the dead. I think that a WW2 combat journalist or cameraman actually got a medal for having both sides of the battle in the same footage. It was only for a few seconds, but the footage showed American GIs assaulting a Japanese trench as the Japanese ran out of their bunkers.
I generally do not like being around police. Without being able to go into details concerning it, they've pulled 'shady stuff' on me in the past.
This does not mean that I want all police to die. This DOES mean that I do not like them, however.
"Every business has bad seeds" is not really an acceptable defense, because they should be held to a much higher standard. By posting videos and stories about situations where there is brutality or shady business going on, people keep them in check.
I feel like I'm hearing "Cops are good and outstanding people. You shouldn't point out where they're bad."
Maybe we should set aside a day to celebrate soldiers and their sacrifices; it should be a national holiday. We can call it "Soldiers Who Served in Combat Day". Actually that seems a bit unwieldy. We'll work on the title.
Will...we have Veteran's Day.....but I no longer do it for God, Country and the American way of life...eerrrr...I more realistic. I do what I do for G-strings, 36DD, and Brass Poles
The whole "I am okay with cops roughing some people up to get their job done" mindset has a few problems in my opinion.
1) It craps on the concepts of innocent until proven guilty.
2) It assumes that cops would never ever make a mistake and rough up the wrong person.
3) Cops enforce the law. If they don't have to follow the laws that they are enforcing, then why should anybody else have to?
4) I doubt that the constitution was written to protect criminals. It was written to protect innocent people from the kind of action often caught on video and then posted. And by innocent people I will gladly include the suspected criminals, which again are in fact innocent until after a trial.
Jihadin wrote:Will...we have Veteran's Day.....but I no longer do it for God, Country and the American way of life...eerrrr...I more realistic. I do what I do for G-strings, 36DD, and Brass Poles
G Strings, 36DD's, and Brass Poles -ARE- the american way of life.
I understand for the bit of aggressiveness (not to a extreme physical level) by cops, they don't know who they are dealing with, could be someone getting ready to shoot the cop in the head.
I do hate those "bully" cops. You know the type that were big shots in high school and try to keep authority by being a cop. Then there are corrupt cops. But these are the minority and are part of the reason for the blame on cops.
The whole "anti-statists" idea is very vocal about cops being just a bunch of "pigs"
There are quite a few female cops in my area, they are all nasty, one is a pervert.
LunaHound wrote:Im not trying to make any claims but, atleast from youtube comments, it does seem like there are a high % of Americans that dislike cop / police. I would like to know why, im sure they cant be THAT bad or corrupted?.
In defense of US police agencies, it's a matter of the 99% of bad cops painting the 1% of good cops in a bad light.
gman1401 wrote:I am a college student studying Criminal Justice and so am always searching YouTube for police in action types of videos. A majority of the results when you type in, say "police shootout" or "police arrest" or something end up being about how all cops are pigs who should all die and what not.
I am very appreciative of police and the work they do for us. Now, I realize that police brutality exists, but am also keen enough to realize how isolated it actually is and how quickly liberal media scoops up stories and go to town with them. This is really beginning to get on my nerves!
Every business has bad seeds, yet I don't see people dubbing every coach a child molester after this UPenn incident or every foorball player a dog abuser after Vick.
I think America should be more respective of police in general. End rant.
I'm going to play Devils Advocate with the majority of people in this thread and say that I'm a law abiding citizen with no criminal record, and I genuinely dislike the Police.
I have numerous tales and anecdotes of minor run ins with the police, but I wont bore you with most of them, most amusingly one that springs to mind is when me and two mates were locked out of his girlfriends house after we had been to the pub cos we beat her home. We sat on her wall for ten minutes and then a police van and 2 cars pulled up. The coppers were ridiculously aggressive, and one of them stood about two inches from my face and starting being massively aggro. I worked with the PSNI for a great length of time and recieved 9 weeks training pre deployment to Northern Ireland, and we were taught law enforcement techniques such as "chat up" techniques, how they teach you to stand at an angle to any would be aggressors instead of taking a square on stance as it can escalate the situation, to lean backwards and speak softly to try and avoid conflict. And this guy was doing the exact opposite and I told him so. Its like they want us to swing for them so they have an excuse to beat you up.
Basically it boils down to this, I believe that our police are staggeringly unprofessional. They really do get away (on occasion, clearly not for major felonies) with breaking the laws that they are supposed to uphold, their training is a joke, they don't have regular fitness tests, and most importantly, it seems to me that years ago policemen were all rough and tumble working class blokes who knew everyone from the local community. Nowadays it's a good job, with a good pension, so you get women with degree's in History doing it or spotty skinny types who got bulled at school and have a chip on their shoulder, they are scared of their own shadows, and this fear makes them act in a ridiculous manner. I have seen some of them visibly shaking at the football matches when it gets a wee bit dicey, and as a result they will gas your face off soon as look at you.
Not all cops are bad, Ive met a few good one's, but loads of them are, and as a result I try to avoid speaking to them or interacting with them at all. Respect has to be earned, and I have very little for the police. I would also add that I never phone them as a result, and I know loads of people who are the exact same, so the crime figures are probably way higher than they suggest!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: but in the end I think people still generally side with cops over criminals at least...
This much is true however, and I can fully understand WHY cops act unprofessionally after dealing with scum ALL day, some clearly find it hard to switch their "im dealing with animals!" button over to "now im talking to a nice citizen" and I think that's half the problem.
I reckon in the UK at least, political interference is damaging to the morale and cohesion of the Police force. The British government seems to like micromanaging every state body instead of letting the professionals in the different fields make decisions.
I think one can also make the point that, since the 1950s, there has been a pretty strong seam of anti-authoritarianism running through popular culture, specifically in film and pop music. As one of the most potently symbolic apparatuses of state paternalism, it seems fairly understandable that teenage rebellion (the wellspring of late 20th century western popular culture) would focus upon the police as a figure to be rebelled against. Culture is powerful - it's formative to young people. If you grow up consuming cultural texts that give you the impression that the police are the enemy, then in some cases that message will be embedded from an early age, and reinforced by experience. It can certainly affect one's perspective.
I actually feel that there's a rising tide of militarism in western popular culture, incidentally.
I dislike cops because on more than one occasion I have seen them lie outright in court. There are plenty of stories where cops are even proven to be lying outright in court, and nothing happens.
While these might be outliers, the fact that other cops cover for them or turn a blind eye to their misconduct is unacceptable.
Albatross wrote:I think one can also make the point that, since the 1950s, there has been a pretty strong seam of anti-authoritarianism running through popular culture, specifically in film and pop music. As one of the most potently symbolic apparatuses of state paternalism, it seems fairly understandable that teenage rebellion (the wellspring of late 20th century western popular culture) would focus upon the police as a figure to be rebelled against. Culture is powerful - it's formative to young people. If you grow up consuming cultural texts that give you the impression that the police are the enemy, then in some cases that message will be embedded from an early age, and reinforced by experience. It can certainly affect one's perspective.
I actually feel that there's a rising tide of militarism in western popular culture, incidentally.
Militarism perhaps, certainly there has been an increase in conservatism and authoritarianism in the past 10+ years.
The British reaction against the police can be traced to Thatcher's user of them as paramilitary shock forces to suppress the miners' strike of the early 80s.
The drug laws are also to blame. Many people in all levels of society are well aware that drugs aren't worth the penalties the police are compelled to exact against them.
Kilkrazy wrote:The drug laws are also to blame. Many people in all levels of society are well aware that drugs aren't worth the penalties the police are compelled to exact against them.
What many people in all levels of society are not so aware of is that police don't necessarily arrest every single offender who has broken drug laws.
In many cases, drug arrests are used on individuals who have one of three things going on:
1) Ties to illicit organizations, who can be used as a leveraging point to get them to turn witness against the organization in question.
2) Repeated "under the influence" offenses or repeated instances of a single officer letting the individual slide for the offense.
3) The individual cannot be arrested for a greater crime due to lack of evidence, thus the lesser crime is used to keep the individual out of society for a period of time.
DIDM wrote:as tired as you are, there are many many more who are tired of what the police have become
if you can't see a problem with modern policing then you are one of THEM
I can't see a problem with modern policing--outside of the crummy pay, the lack of educational and ethical admission standards, the constant hate shoveled their way, the attempts by protesters to always coordinate it so that the police are videotaped "throwing the first punch" whilst the police video which is unedited and not available to the general public will show that the protesters had been trying to ramp up the situation for hours beforehand, etc.
Seriously. You want better police? You have a better pay standard, a better protection system within the organization for those willing to compromise the "wall of silence" to report issues they've observed, etc.
As it stands now, whistleblowers will generally not come forward. Why? The job's stressful enough without having to worry about knives at your back from the people who are supposed to be watching it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:Ordinary people don't necessarily make much distinction between the police, the courts and the government. They are all "The Man".
Kilkrazy wrote:The drug laws are also to blame. Many people in all levels of society are well aware that drugs aren't worth the penalties the police are compelled to exact against them.
What many people in all levels of society are not so aware of is that police don't necessarily arrest every single offender who has broken drug laws.
Perhaps the USA could learn from this country that you speak of, where is it again? The number of people found with drugs on them that were just given a warning would have to be such a small number as to be almost insignificant.
Kanluwen wrote:1) Ties to illicit organizations, who can be used as a leveraging point to get them to turn witness against the organization in question.
This ties into the drug laws being woefully inefficient, if not downright encouraging of these types of organizations to exist. Prohibition leads to Al Capone, legal alcohol leads to Budweiser.
Kilkrazy wrote:The drug laws are also to blame. Many people in all levels of society are well aware that drugs aren't worth the penalties the police are compelled to exact against them.
What many people in all levels of society are not so aware of is that police don't necessarily arrest every single offender who has broken drug laws.
Perhaps the USA could learn from this country that you speak of, where is it again? The number of people found with drugs on them that were just given a warning would have to be such a small number as to be almost insignificant.
If you think that every single individual found with drugs on them are actually arrested--I do not know what to tell you.
Kanluwen wrote:1) Ties to illicit organizations, who can be used as a leveraging point to get them to turn witness against the organization in question.
This ties into the drug laws being woefully inefficient, if not downright encouraging of these types of organizations to exist. Prohibition leads to Al Capone, legal alcohol leads to Budweiser.
Actually it ties into the fact that these organizations are organized(gasp!) in such a way that they are unable to be prosecuted without testimony from insiders or these groups have to royally feth up to be brought down.
Kanluwen wrote:If you think that every single individual found with drugs on them are actually arrested--I do not know what to tell you.
So not only can you not read, you also don't have anything to back up your statement. Very good.
Kanluwen wrote:Actually it ties into the fact that these organizations are organized(gasp!) in such a way that they are unable to be prosecuted without testimony from insiders or these groups have to royally feth up to be brought down.
Look at organized crime before Prohibition, during, and after and you see a significant difference in each phase. The same is true here. Again, you seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension, as my argument in no way stated organized crime would completely cease to exist, but that our laws exacerbate the problem, not lead to solutions, much like how Prohibition was supposed to help curb societies ills but instead made us a nation full of criminals, either through being part of the selling of alcohol or by purchasing and drinking it. We've been waging a failing "War on Drugs" for years now and it hasn't slowed down drug use and it has created larger organized criminal organizations to boot.
I dislike the cops over here because they have repeatedly come out and complained/searched/moved me on but when being chased down a street by a bunch of d***s with knifes wouldn't come out at all.
Howver they have also pursued my friends mugging with an unholy zeal so they are a double edged sword.
I've no criminal record to speak of, but I do not like cops much at all. Biggest reason for that is because they're simply human. It's very possible that you will get a ticket based on how attractive you are. This ties with the concept that a cop has the right to give you a warning or a ticket. I've seen people get warnings who knew they were doing something bad, but still got out of it, and I've seen people who make normal mistakes and get punished for it. I rode with a black friend once while I was in the back seat about 11 or so at night, and a cop pulled him over "Just to make sure he wasn't doing something bad". Yeah right.
Cops get paid to do two things, catch bad people doing bad things, and capitalize on the mistakes good people make.
Kanluwen wrote:If you think that every single individual found with drugs on them are actually arrested--I do not know what to tell you.
So not only can you not read, you also don't have anything to back up your statement. Very good.
I can read just fine.
You know, much like you can apparently not actually provide a point to refute.
Ahtman wrote:Perhaps the USA could learn from this country that you speak of, where is it again? The number of people found with drugs on them that were just given a warning would have to be such a small number as to be almost insignificant.
There's nothing to refute there. Just a smartmouth comment implying that the police arrest every single individual with drugs found on them.
Oh, and by the way?
Per the decision by the US Supreme Court in 1992 for the case of "Minnesota v. Dickerson", officers cannot frisk an individual beyond what is allowed by the decision established in 1968 for Terry v. Ohio.
What that means is that "a frisk that goes beyond what is allowed under Terry is not valid. In this case, the search went beyond the 'pat-down search' allowed by Terry because the officer 'squeezed, slid, and otherwise manipulated the packet's content' before knowing it was cocaine".
Terry allows for a protective search without a warrant and on the basis of reasonable suspicion "less than probable cause and must be strictly limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby".
TL;DR version for you:
If police cannot readily identify it without having to resort to manipulating the object, even after an individual is seen leaving a known crackhouse (as was done in this case), then there is no possibility to admit it into evidence without some form of warrant or informant tipping them off about it.
Think about that. Proper procedure can be defeated by putting something into a black plastic baggy or a film canister.
Kanluwen wrote:Actually it ties into the fact that these organizations are organized(gasp!) in such a way that they are unable to be prosecuted without testimony from insiders or these groups have to royally feth up to be brought down.
Look at organized crime before Prohibition, during, and after and you see a significant difference in each phase.The same is true here.
Yeah...not really.
Again, you seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension, as my argument in no way stated organized crime would completely cease to exist, but that our laws exacerbate the problem, not lead to solutions, much like how Prohibition was supposed to help curb societies ills but instead made us a nation full of criminals, either through being part of the selling of alcohol or by purchasing and drinking it.
Prohibition was an act brought about to try to create a set of "moral laws". There's no way it was going to succeed, especially not with the "moral ill" being readily available from doctors at the time as a perscription.
We've been waging a failing "War on Drugs" for years now and it hasn't slowed down drug use and it has created larger organized criminal organizations to boot.
We've been waging a failing "War on Drugs" because we've actually done nothing about the production of the crops which are used either to directly create those drugs or create those drugs as a side effect.
In some cases (Peru and Colombia immediately spring to mind) there's nothing which actually CAN be done without a full fledged regime change, overhaul of the country's agricultural production, et al.
Edit was to fix the year on Terry v. Ohio
I have no clue why I put 1969 instead of 1968. Fat fingers musta done it.
Second edit was because I realized I didn't actually finish a sentence.
DIDM wrote:as tired as you are, there are many many more who are tired of what the police have become
if you can't see a problem with modern policing then you are one of THEM
I can't see a problem with modern policing--outside of the crummy pay, the lack of educational and ethical admission standards, the constant hate shoveled their way, the attempts by protesters to always coordinate it so that the police are videotaped "throwing the first punch" whilst the police video which is unedited and not available to the general public will show that the protesters had been trying to ramp up the situation.
And why do you think the video from the police is need available? During recent protests there have been a ton of cops running around with video cameras, but no footage that shows that they were innocent?
We have had court battles here in oklahoma to force cops to release their footage, and they are fighting it tooth and nail. If they have footage that shows a guy punching a cop it will be on the news on he same day, but I'd he cop puts a paramedic in a choke hold they refuse to release the footage.
If the cops were innocent, they would have already released the footage, footage that should be public record anyway and should be released after a FOI request but usually isn't.
DIDM wrote:as tired as you are, there are many many more who are tired of what the police have become
if you can't see a problem with modern policing then you are one of THEM
I can't see a problem with modern policing--outside of the crummy pay, the lack of educational and ethical admission standards, the constant hate shoveled their way, the attempts by protesters to always coordinate it so that the police are videotaped "throwing the first punch" whilst the police video which is unedited and not available to the general public will show that the protesters had been trying to ramp up the situation.
And why do you think the video from the police is need available? During recent protests there have been a ton of cops running around with video cameras, but no footage that shows that they were innocent?
We have had court battles here in oklahoma to force cops to release their footage, and they are fighting it tooth and nail. If they have footage that shows a guy punching a cop it will be on the news on he same day, but I'd he cop puts a paramedic in a choke hold they refuse to release the footage.
If the cops were innocent, they would have already released the footage, footage that should be public record anyway and should be released after a FOI request but usually isn't.
You missed what I actually was saying.
Protesters purposely go out of their way to edit their videos so that it is always showing the police in the most negative light possible. The video is likely not available to the general public because it's being utilized as part of an open investigation within the department by the Internal Affairs office to clear the officers or confirm that they were, in fact, behaving inappropriately.
But hey. Let's make that public record. While we're at it let's make it so that whenever some moron gets filmed throwing a punch at a cop and the cop retaliates, the video can only be released showing the moron throwing the first punch.
DIDM wrote:as tired as you are, there are many many more who are tired of what the police have become
if you can't see a problem with modern policing then you are one of THEM
I can't see a problem with modern policing--outside of the crummy pay, the lack of educational and ethical admission standards, the constant hate shoveled their way, the attempts by protesters to always coordinate it so that the police are videotaped "throwing the first punch" whilst the police video which is unedited and not available to the general public will show that the protesters had been trying to ramp up the situation.
And why do you think the video from the police is need available? During recent protests there have been a ton of cops running around with video cameras, but no footage that shows that they were innocent?
We have had court battles here in oklahoma to force cops to release their footage, and they are fighting it tooth and nail. If they have footage that shows a guy punching a cop it will be on the news on he same day, but I'd he cop puts a paramedic in a choke hold they refuse to release the footage.
If the cops were innocent, they would have already released the footage, footage that should be public record anyway and should be released after a FOI request but usually isn't.
You missed what I actually was saying.
Protesters purposely go out of their way to edit their videos so that it is always showing the police in the most negative light possible. The video is likely not available to the general public because it's being utilized as part of an open investigation within the department by the Internal Affairs office to clear the officers or confirm that they were, in fact, behaving inappropriately.
But hey. Let's make that public record. While we're at it let's make it so that whenever some moron gets filmed throwing a punch at a cop and the cop retaliates, the video can only be released showing the moron throwing the first punch.
And you missed my point completely. Police videos showing criminals acting bad ALWAYS get released to the media, even if he investigation is still ongoing.
Police videos showing cops breaking the law is never released, citing ongoing investigations that could be harmed by the release.
Just because he cops are having an internal investigation, that does not change that whatever happened in the video happened. Cops are trying to hide their mistakes using 20th century tactics when everyone around them is using 21st century technology.
Actual "police videos"(as in: videos taken by the police) actually DON'T get released to the media by and large, especially if an investigation or a trial is ongoing. The few examples I can think of are identifying tapes from instances where an officer is shot during a routine traffic stop or things of that nature.
Evidence such as bank security tapes, etc DO get released--but they only get released in the interest of "public awareness" as they are used for 'hotlines' to get people calling in if they recognize the individual.
There's a definite line between holding the police accountable and cop bashing. Not all cops are bad but as servants of the public they are held responsible by the same.
I think what really grates on my nerves are swat teams. There is such a thing as too much. The other thing is Tasers. Tasers make cops lazy and citizens less compliant. When the choice was compliance or a pretty solid beating on the end of a baton both police and citizen had room to pause and think, " do I really want to go there?" Tasers take the necessity of compromise off the table for both sides. The cop doesn't have to resolve the issue peacefully and the citizen knows that instead of a bone crunching beating the worst that will happen is some electric shock and some pepper spray.
AustonT wrote:There's a definite line between holding the police accountable and cop bashing. Not all cops are bad but as servants of the public they are held responsible by the same.
I think what really grates on my nerves are swat teams. There is such a thing as too much. The other thing is Tasers. Tasers make cops lazy and citizens less compliant. When the choice was compliance or a pretty solid beating on the end of a baton both police and citizen had room to pause and think, " do I really want to go there?" Tasers take the necessity of compromise off the table for both sides. The cop doesn't have to resolve the issue peacefully and the citizen knows that instead of a bone crunching beating the worst that will happen is some electric shock and some pepper spray.
I wouldn't say that tasers "make cops lazy".
I would say, however, that it does make cops a little bit less tolerant of people's crap.
But if we're going to be honest about it: you see this of almost anyone(police or private citizens both) who possesses a taser or pepper spray--rather than talk things out, rationally it's far easier to just taze or spray them and call it a day.
The only difference is that now tasers are considered by police departments to be the 'best defense' of their officers to any potential hostility from individuals they're confronting.
Why? Because if a cop lays hands on someone or beats them senseless with a collapsible baton--that someone can claim they've been heavily mistreated and/or that the officer was "trying to kill them".
However we know that tasers are not lethal, barring certain circumstances (individuals with pacemakers, weak hearts, extreme respiratory issues and/or the potential for seizures) which cannot necessarily be foreseen.
I do very little in terms of illegal activity and have nightmares and an extreme paranoia in regards to cops. They bug me. I have little respect for them by default and I'm open about it. They can ticket you for no reason, which can absolutely kill someone's budget. Why does some random guy have that kind of power over me? It's silly. I've been stopped multiple times while walking and upon asking why I was stopped they said they were just making sure I was being safe, etc yet they asked for my ID. Why are they trying to randomly ID me? What the hell? Is running or walking in exercise shorts and no shirt illegal or something? I thought they weren't supposed to be able to do that. Whatever.
Kanluwen wrote:In regards to your stoppage thing: look into "Terry v. Ohio" Cannerus.
Landmark case about stops, mostly dealing with context.
And actually they need a reason to ticket you. You don't just get ticketed "because", and if you do--you can challenge it.
It's called they open their magic book of bs and choose a reason to give you a ticket. If you want to challenge it, there's no guarantee of getting out of anything and it costs your time and effort to get it dismissed OR ELSE YOU GET A WARRANT AND GET ARRESTED. Does anyone think this is remotely fair? I heard a police chief tell me that he told every trainee they had that if you couldn't find a reason to ticket someone after observing them driving/walking for one city block, then you were a bad cop. If I hadn't heard and seen that proven, I wouldn't hold this view. I'll look up that case.
So basically, you're basing this off what likely is a case of a police chief telling his trainees something that he likely either:
A) Should not be
or
B) Was telling them so that they can use it to establish a context for a legal stop.
Kanluwen wrote:So basically, you're basing this off what likely is a case of a police chief telling his trainees something that he likely either:
A) Should not be
or
B) Was telling them so that they can use it to establish a context for a legal stop.
I don't know at all what you mean by the last one. I just know it's okay for people to ask to see my ID because I'm walking and that sort of feels like the equivalent to rape to me. I know my paranoia of cops is fairly irrational, but I'd really rather them not ever talk to me or be in a vehicle anywhere near a vehicle I'm in.
Basically:
This was established in 2004 under Devenpeck v. Alford.
Under this, it was decided that "for an arrest to be constitutional, there is no requirement in the Fourth Amendment for the offense establishing probable cause for an arrest to be 'closely related' to and based on the same conduct as the offense identified by the officer".
TL;DR version: it was a way for officers to make an arrest for a lesser offense but upon further investigation, it can be decided that the actions are more appropriate for a different offense.
It also established that the officer's state of mind is not a factor in establishing probable cause.
There's another case which was decided shortly before that, 2000's Illinois v. Wardlow.
This one stated that "Presence in a high-crime area, combined with unprovoked flight upon observing police officers, gives officers sufficient grounds to investigate further to determine if criminal activity is about take place."
Also: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada et al. in 2004 had another thing to say on the matter of identification.
"The Fourth Amendment allows officers, pursuant to a stop and frisk, to require a person to provide his or her name. The person may be arrested for refusing to comply".
Over here in Western Australia, a couple of years ago there were two events within a couple of weeks of each other. In the first, the trial of a guy charged with king hitting an off duty policeman and causing serious brain damage concluded, with the guy found not guilty. I agree that the decision made by the jury was ridiculous, but was surprised at the massive numbers of regular people who got into the streets to protest the decision, outraged over the lack of protection given to a policeman.
In the second case, an aboriginal guy was picked up for being drunk and disorderly, kept in a cell overnight, and then transferred to another prison the next day. The problem was that the back of the van he was transported in had no air conditioning, no ventilation, just was metal seats, and he was being taken across the middle of the outback, during summer. Temperatures outside reached about 40' C, temperatures inside the van exceeded 50' C, and the guy cooked to death. There were no street protests, not like the concern over the bashed policeman.
The contrast between the two situation seemed to show to me where our sympathies primarily lie.
I think cops do a tough job, and I know that there is certainly a number of people who are overtly anti-police, but they are pretty much a powerless minority, mostly teenagers looking for their rebellious cause, and aging and long since irrelevant anarchist/hippie types. Among the rest of society there is no such antipathy towards police, indeed the opposite is true, we are incredibly trusting of our police, grant them any possible benefit of the doubt over any allegation, and remain largely unbothered whenever there is a death in custody.
Policing is a contraversial issue, and no ideology can properly describe the situation, with each instance needing to be judged in its own rights, each officer judged according to how he acted in that situation. But the OP's idea that there is some systemic bias towards policemen is just not true.
And Kanluven, I'm not saying that all cops are scum. In my 14 years driving and 6 years working in EMS, volunteering for the Fire Department, and working in the Emergency Room I have encountered a grand total of 2.5 cops who I would consider bad apples.
The first was a Highway Patrol man who was in charge of the scene of a vehicle fire I worked at the side of the interstate. Car was on fire in the break down lane, and our SOGs dictate that when we stop our trucks on the interstate, we will utilize said truck to block "lane+1" meaning we will block and shut down the lane of the incident and the lane next to it. In this case we blocked the breakdown lane and the "slow" lane. This gives the guys who are focused on putting out the fire two lanes of safety and if somebody is not paying attention they will hit a truck containing 1000 gallons of water instead of a human being.
I was driving the Engine and as soon as we arrived on scene and followed our SOG the trooper started running towards me and started to yell at me while he was about 3 feet from my face and I was putting the safety chocks in front of my tires to get ready and flow water. I am not lying to you when I say that this professional trooper proceeded to scream at the top of his lung "Get your F***ing truck of my interstate!" I told him that I am following my SOGs to ensure the safety of my crew. He again yelled at me, now inches from my face "I don't care what your F***ING SOGs are, this is my interstate and you WILL move your f***ing truck or I will arrest you."
At this time my captain arrived on scene, and I told the trooper "that is my captain, when he tells me to move my truck, I will move my truck, talk to him". Mr. Trooper started to run towards my captain and told him "Get your f***ing truck off my interstate", he tried to tell him why we are blocking lane+1 and was cut off my the trooper "I don't care what you f***ing volunteers have in your SOGs, you WILL get your truck off this lane or I will arrest every single one of you a**holes."
At this point my captain told me to seize operations, and have my guys roll up the hose and load up. Trooper started to ask what the hell we were doing. Captain told him that if we are not allowed to do our job safely, he can do our job himself and that he hopes he has a big fire extinguisher in his trunk. After that he let us do our job, and while we were putting out the fire a car swerved to avoid our truck at the last minute and ended up in the median. At this time trooper became unglued again and started to yell "That is the reason I told you g**damn a**holes to get of my f***ing lane!" Trying to explain that this driver was a prime example of why we were blocking the lane to begin with because if he almost missed a big red truck with flashing lights he surely would have missed a guy in turnouts standing on the side of the road did not result in much success.
A few weeks later, and a few phone calls later, said trooper was reassigned from the metro area to the panhandle of Oklahoma.
Cop #2 was called to my emergency room after one of my coworkers received a phone call stating that the person calling is going to come to the hospital and kill him. We were able to get an address and called 911. After about 30 minutes cop shows up and proceeds to tell us that there is nothing that he could do because the address that we gave him did not exist. He told us that xxx8 was the parking lot to the hospital and so the address was crap. Me and the other nurse who received the phone call both used to work for EMS and told him "the address is an even number right?" to which the cop replied affirmative. So we asked him "all even numbers are on the south and east sides of the street right?" to which he again replied affirmative. "So if the address is an even number, and our parking lot is on the west side of the street, how can the address be in our parking lot?" After not having a good answer he started to tell us about how the address is not in the property tax records so it could not exist. At this point I asked him if he drove by the area of the address to see if there was a house there he again started to talk about how no tax records mean no house exists. He started to use our computers in the nurses station to pull up the county tax assessor website to show us that there are no tax records for this address.
At this point I decided that I had enough of him and left the hospital, walked to the parking lot, and walked down the road next to the parking lot until I stood in front of a house with the exact address that the caller gave us. I walked back to the ER and told the cop, "I just stood in front of the house you said doesn't exist." He again said, that can't be, there are no tax records, while continuing to pull up records on the computer. I told him "Listen, I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job. But I used to work for EMS and if I got a 911 call saying go to X address, and I pull up to a house that has X address, I would probably knock on the door no matter what the computer said".
At this point he continued to make the same point about tax records. One of our hospital cops tapped the city cop on the shoulder and told him that they watched me walk over there on the camera, and that they currently have a security camera pointed at the house with the address in plain sight if he cared to look at it. Didn't see the city cop again after he left.
Cop 2.5 was just a little on edge and might even be more of a Cop 2.25. I was speeding through a school zone and didn't realize it until about a quarter in when I slammed on my brake. I was on the inside lane and saw the cop light up about 10 cars behind me pulling out of a parking lot. Before he even was close I started to move to the right lane and when he got behind me I turned on my hazzards to let him know I was aware of him. This was on a very busy main street so I was going to pull into the first parking lot or side street to get our of traffic. (That is what I have done for the last 6 years whenever I got pulled over and the cops have always been appreciative of not having to work in traffic.)
After following me for 5 seconds he started to hit his siren. I motioned that I was aware and that I am pulling into the parking lot about 5 seconds further down the road. I pulled into the parking lot, turned off my engine, and placed my hands on the steering wheel so that he could see them. Again, I know that they are always at risk so I try to make sure that they can always see what I am doing so that they have one less thing to worry about. As soon as the cop got out of his car he pulled his gun and was holding it in his hands as he was walking towards my car. At this point I put my hands outside the window that was already rolled down so that he could see that I was not holding anything, but he still held onto his gun until after he started to talk to me.
Now given, maybe they just had something bad go down with a car matching my description, but it seemed pretty extreme.
Now 2.something bad cops after working with cops every day for 6+ years is not a bad tally. And the vast majority of cops are outstanding guys and gals.
But the risk for abuse still exists and some people go mad as soon as you put a badge on their chest. A small comic once said "who watches the watchmen?" I think that we should be able to film cops whenever they are in public and hold them accountable. States that are passing laws outlawing videotaping police and charging people with wiretapping for filming a cop during a traffic stop and then get arrested and slammed to the ground is simply wrong.
If a cop gets caught being bad, then something should be done about it. The police work for the people, not the other way around.
And as I stated earlier: if you consider how many cops there are in the United States, the number of "bad cops" on YouTube is not very impressive. And people are not going to put videos of "watch this officer pull over someone and be totally professional about it!!!!" on YouTube because that is what we expect of our cops anyway.
tl;dr version:
I think that the vast majority of cops are outstanding at what they do, but if we catch one being bad we should be able to make the evidence available and pursue action against him or her.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:Over here in Western Australia, a couple of years ago there were two events within a couple of weeks of each other. In the first, the trial of a guy charged with king hitting an off duty policeman and causing serious brain damage concluded, with the guy found not guilty. I agree that the decision made by the jury was ridiculous, but was surprised at the massive numbers of regular people who got into the streets to protest the decision, outraged over the lack of protection given to a policeman.
In the second case, an aboriginal guy was picked up for being drunk and disorderly, kept in a cell overnight, and then transferred to another prison the next day. The problem was that the back of the van he was transported in had no air conditioning, no ventilation, just was metal seats, and he was being taken across the middle of the outback, during summer. Temperatures outside reached about 40' C, temperatures inside the van exceeded 50' C, and the guy cooked to death. There were no street protests, not like the concern over the bashed policeman.
The contrast between the two situation seemed to show to me where our sympathies primarily lie.
We would have protests over both, so at least we would be consistent.
We actually have a case over three guys who were drunk and almost killed an off duty police officer even after they were informed that he was a cop. They continued to beat him until he was paralyzed with a broken neck.
sebster wrote:I think cops do a tough job, and I know that there is certainly a number of people who are overtly anti-police, but they are pretty much a powerless minority, mostly teenagers looking for their rebellious cause, and aging and long since irrelevant anarchist/hippie types. Among the rest of society there is no such antipathy towards police, indeed the opposite is true, we are incredibly trusting of our police, grant them any possible benefit of the doubt over any allegation, and remain largely unbothered whenever there is a death in custody.
I am a 30 year old professional, far from an anarchist type. I am mostly libertarian instead and I trust the police, but when I see legislatures that are trying to do stuff like making it illegal to videotape a police officer in public I start to loose that trust. If they have nothing to hide, why would they be so paranoid about being filmed? Knowing that the cops are filming me and wearing microphones during a traffic stop makes it even worse. If they can film everybody they stop, we should be able to film them. Most of our cops are sympathetic to this cause with the only restriction they want in place being "don't interfere with me doing my job and don't film me where it puts you in danger. Other than that I don't care if people film me". And I can totally respect that point.
sebster wrote:Policing is a contraversial issue, and no ideology can properly describe the situation, with each instance needing to be judged in its own rights, each officer judged according to how he acted in that situation. But the OP's idea that there is some systemic bias towards policemen is just not true.
I agree with that statement. My only problem would be that if we cannot record cops, then they are in charge of all the evidence even if they are the ones being accused. Both sides having evidence is a good thing.
Both sides have stereo types/profiling. If you talk, act, and look like a "gangsta" well....if it walks like a duck, quack like a duck then it has to be a duck right? As for law enforcement well having a badge and a weapon does influence having a power trip. It could all be base on perception. I have been pulled over like a lot of you all but I make it a point to show both my hands out the window. To me that puts the officer at ease. Since I do like to see everyone hands exposed while in Afghanistan or Iraq. Same apply to him/her. From what I seen posted already it seems some of you all are a bit shady just by the way your wording it and what my perception of you are.
d-usa wrote:We would have protests over both, so at least we would be consistent.
Sure, and I should clarify that there was a decent measure of public outcry over the second case, just nothing like the numbers that got out to protest the failure to punish the guy who crippled a policeman. It just seems like the policeman being attacked struck a powerful, emotive chord with people, whereas the guy dying in custody was recognised as wrong, but without the same emotion.
It seems to me fairly clear that society in general is highly supportive of its police.
I am a 30 year old professional, far from an anarchist type. I am mostly libertarian instead and I trust the police,
Then you're not really the kind of guy I was talking about, and almost certainly not the type being talked about by the OP and others like him when they talk about police bashing. There is a small, but highly vocal minority that likes to make a lot of noise about horrible all cops are. It's important to acknowledge that that sort exist, whether they're teenagers sounding off to sound tough, or just general anti-authority types, not because they have any power or relevance, because they certainly don't, but because the far more numerous group that will support police in almost anything they do will regularly refer to that tiny minority to try and discredit any criticism of policemen.
but when I see legislatures that are trying to do stuff like making it illegal to videotape a police officer in public I start to loose that trust. If they have nothing to hide, why would they be so paranoid about being filmed? Knowing that the cops are filming me and wearing microphones during a traffic stop makes it even worse. If they can film everybody they stop, we should be able to film them. Most of our cops are sympathetic to this cause with the only restriction they want in place being "don't interfere with me doing my job and don't film me where it puts you in danger. Other than that I don't care if people film me". And I can totally respect that point.
Honestly, I can actually see the argument for a flat out ban on filming police actions. These guys follow set routines for a lot of their actions, and filming how they operate and spreading that on-line could be downright dangerous.
However, there now exist small lapel cameras that have been distributed to police for trial runs. Here in Oz they were running a trial of the cameras, and an officer in that trial was involved in a crowd control scene at a music festival. A girl was charged with assaulting an officer who ended up with a broken nose, and she said she had no idea how he got hurt, but she hadn't attacked him. The lapel camera showed the officer was incredibly aggressive, and while the girl was giving him some lip, she wasn't physically threatening, and his incredibly aggressive response was well and truly uncalled for. The court found she did break his nose, but only in the act of attempting to break free from the very dangerous grapple the officer put her in (they were against the fence that festival patron were crammed up against). Had the lapel camera not been there the decision would have likely been very different.
The police have claimed the cameras would represent too great a data processing challenge, and frankly that's bs. They like going to court with only their word against the accused, so I agree with you entirely there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:From what I seen posted already it seems some of you all are a bit shady just by the way your wording it and what my perception of you are.
Sorry, I don't really know what you mean in that sentence.
If you are doing recon work on the cops, then you can also do that by watching them, and typing their routine procedures up and posting them online. So a ban on cameras based on that is not a valid solution IMO and with cameras becomming smaller and smaller law enforcement just needs to get used to the fact that they are being filmed 24/7 and act accordingly.
If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear...as the cops would say.
I am sure that there are also situations were law enforcement benefited from bystander footage that was taken during an Incident.
I just want bad cops caught and punished so that they no longer cast a bad light on the police in general and drag the good cops down by association.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also: I don't consider posting videos of cops being bad and posting them online cop bashing. I am sure some of the language used by people posting them is inflamstory and their intention is to bash cops, but I also know of people posting videos in a calm manner to air a grievance that has been ignored by the authorities.
So while some people post videos to bash cops, I don't think that the sole act of posting a video of cops being bad equals cop bashing...if that makes any sense.
A good example would be the videos earlier this year about some people being arrested at a memorial in DC for dancing. They knew they were going to be arrested, and they danced expecting to be arrested. When the cops arrested them they started fighting the cops and a guy got body slammed.
The YouTube video was titled "Body slammed by police for dancing!" when in fact they were arrested for dancing, and then body slammed for resisting arrest. These are two distinct incidences in my mind with two distinct responses.
Now if he was dancing and the cop just picked him up and slammed him on the ground they would have had a valid point and should have posted the video. But in this case the cop did nothing wrong in my mind other than enforce a stupid law and the video shown is in favor if the cop, even if the people posting it think otherwise.
d-usa wrote:If you are doing recon work on the cops, then you can also do that by watching them, and typing their routine procedures up and posting them online. So a ban on cameras based on that is not a valid solution IMO and with cameras becomming smaller and smaller law enforcement just needs to get used to the fact that they are being filmed 24/7 and act accordingly.
Writing down what cops do really isn't the same thing as video showing it. And look, I'm not even saying I completely agree with the justification, but I can see the argument behind it.
Whereas putting cameras on cops and having them film all the time sidesteps that problem, while still giving providing evidence.
d-usa wrote:If you are doing recon work on the cops, then you can also do that by watching them, and typing their routine procedures up and posting them online. So a ban on cameras based on that is not a valid solution IMO and with cameras becomming smaller and smaller law enforcement just needs to get used to the fact that they are being filmed 24/7 and act accordingly.
Writing down what cops do really isn't the same thing as video showing it. And look, I'm not even saying I completely agree with the justification, but I can see the argument behind it.
Whereas putting cameras on cops and having them film all the time sidesteps that problem, while still giving providing evidence.
The main concern with that though is that cops have all the evidence. So if you accuse the cops of breaking the law, they control the evidence that determines their guild. Videos don't get released and equipment malfunctions and evidenc gets lost. I don't trust a bad cop to han on to the evidence that proves he is dirty.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think it is a good thing they have the technology, but I want my own backup.
d-usa wrote:If you are doing recon work on the cops, then you can also do that by watching them, and typing their routine procedures up and posting them online. So a ban on cameras based on that is not a valid solution IMO and with cameras becomming smaller and smaller law enforcement just needs to get used to the fact that they are being filmed 24/7 and act accordingly.
Writing down what cops do really isn't the same thing as video showing it. And look, I'm not even saying I completely agree with the justification, but I can see the argument behind it.
Whereas putting cameras on cops and having them film all the time sidesteps that problem, while still giving providing evidence.
By and large this is not true. A written log of routine activities and observations is just as if not more usefull than video footage. You may be looking at it from a TLDR standpoint, which would be incorrect. A log can be read relatively quickly and easily reviewed. Scanning hours and hundreds of hours of tape is not nearly as fast.
There is no legitimate reason to attempt to pass legislation preventing the police from being filmed, while the proliferationof cameras operated by or accessed by the police expands, like say New York. The police do not have special rights in this regard.
d-usa wrote:The main concern with that though is that cops have all the evidence. So if you accuse the cops of breaking the law, they control the evidence that determines their guild. Videos don't get released and equipment malfunctions and evidenc gets lost. I don't trust a bad cop to han on to the evidence that proves he is dirty.
An officer who reports nothing wrong with camera, who then says 'oh like it must have stopped for like the two minutes I was accused of beating that hobo then started working again, but seriously he was resisting arrest' would be immediately brought under suspicion. Cops who regularly failed to have video evidence would stand out, very clearly.
Fundamentally its no different to the cameras we already have mounted in police cars, except these will be with the officers at all times.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I do very little in terms of illegal activity and have nightmares and an extreme paranoia in regards to cops. They bug me. I have little respect for them by default and I'm open about it. They can ticket you for no reason, which can absolutely kill someone's budget. Why does some random guy have that kind of power over me? It's silly. I've been stopped multiple times while walking and upon asking why I was stopped they said they were just making sure I was being safe, etc yet they asked for my ID. Why are they trying to randomly ID me? What the hell? Is running or walking in exercise shorts and no shirt illegal or something? I thought they weren't supposed to be able to do that. Whatever.
Perhaps they thought you were.... 'soliciting', let's say? It's a reasonable assumption.
An officer who reports nothing wrong with camera, who then says 'oh like it must have stopped for like the two minutes I was accused of beating that hobo then started working again, but seriously he was resisting arrest' would be immediately brought under suspicion.
Just playing devil's advocate here... That statement seems to assume that the Police are held accountable for every breech in protocol and that no cop ever covers up for another. Which i find hard to believe.
Our local police have such a bad reputation that even the bad coppers from other areas have no respect for them. Mind you, recruitment standards are so low these days that its a bit like being arrested by a horde of arrogant munchkins.
It should be a simple enough principle: If you wish to enforce the law, you must be the first to obey it. But Target-driven policing and low standards have created a police force that is better skilled at making itself look corrupt than actually doing any policing.
Jihadin wrote:Law Enforcement and the military are in the same boat
If I were you I would NOT put yourself in the same boat as police.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DIDM wrote:as tired as you are, there are many many more who are tired of what the police have become
if you can't see a problem with modern policing then you are one of THEM
Ooo oo can I be one of THEM too?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:In regards to your stoppage thing: look into "Terry v. Ohio" Cannerus.
Landmark case about stops, mostly dealing with context.
And actually they need a reason to ticket you. You don't just get ticketed "because", and if you do--you can challenge it.
It's called they open their magic book of bs and choose a reason to give you a ticket. If you want to challenge it, there's no guarantee of getting out of anything and it costs your time and effort to get it dismissed OR ELSE YOU GET A WARRANT AND GET ARRESTED. Does anyone think this is remotely fair? I heard a police chief tell me that he told every trainee they had that if you couldn't find a reason to ticket someone after observing them driving/walking for one city block, then you were a bad cop. If I hadn't heard and seen that proven, I wouldn't hold this view. I'll look up that case.
My favorite is "resisting arrest" charges when there are no other charges. Then why were they being arrested.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:There's another case which was decided shortly before that, 2000's Illinois v. Wardlow.
This one stated that "Presence in a high-crime area, combined with unprovoked flight upon observing police officers, gives officers sufficient grounds to investigate further to determine if criminal activity is about take place."
Also: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada et al. in 2004 had another thing to say on the matter of identification.
"The Fourth Amendment allows officers, pursuant to a stop and frisk, to require a person to provide his or her name. The person may be arrested for refusing to comply".
in other words Cannerus is right. You can be stopped for any reason. You're not supporting an argument on why Cannerus should not be angry about it.
Kanluwen wrote:In other words, Cannerus is absolutely 100% not right.
Suspicious behavior makes police suspicious?
What a twist!
To Kanluwen being in public equals suspicious behavior....yea...right.
When in Cali I lived in a nice little neighborhood of helicopters and cops with shotguns/assault rifles hanging out. Generally I did not mind them, even when they were raiding parties on the block. I would never drink anything besides Dr. Pepper when outside and had many humorous conversations with cops when they rousted everyone else outside. I was just the weird Texan with the Dr. Pepper bottle.
However on occasion they would randomly pull me over. That was very annoying. I wasn't speeding. It wasn't a vehicle of someone they were looking for (only 1200 made in the US). But I would get pulled over about once every two months. No tickets ever. it was stupid and could quickly make you lose your respect for them.
Kanluwen wrote:In other words, Cannerus is absolutely 100% not right.
Suspicious behavior makes police suspicious?
What a twist!
To Kanluwen being in public equals suspicious behavior....yea...right.
Go reread what Cannerus said about what he's doing whenever he gets "hassled".
Being in public with no identification and immediately challenging the police on why you're being stopped, even for a matter as simple as "we want to make sure you're being safe" is pretty suspicious.
Plus, in my experience as a motorist--runners/bikers in urbanized areas constantly think they have the right of way when walking on heavily trafficked roads, even when it's posted that cars have right of way.
However on occasion they would randomly pull me over. That was very annoying. I wasn't speeding. It wasn't a vehicle of someone they were looking for (only 1200 made in the US). But I would get pulled over about once every two months. No tickets ever. it was stupid and could quickly make you lose your respect for them.
Out of interest, is it a classic car?
My dad drives a 1967 Dart and gets pulled over quite often, mostly because as one of the Highway Patrolmen put it "They're told to at least stop and engage drivers in classic automobiles, as there's a chance the car might be stolen and not reported yet".
Out of interest, is it a classic car?
***Just rare and distinguishable (Volvo 1800es).
Pulling them over because "they might be stolen" is no different. Its not reasonable suspicion. Again you're not supporting the argument.
Frazzled wrote:
Out of interest, is it a classic car?
***Just rare and distinguishable (Volvo 1800es).
Pulling them over because "they might be stolen" is no different. Its not reasonable suspicion. Again you're not supporting the argument.
You and I both know that vehicles aren't held to the same standard for searches and/or stops.
Carroll established that in freakin' 1925.
However you of all people should be able to articulate the fact that if you get stopped and engaged by a police officer--even about something as simple as "are you being safe?", it's a not so great idea to behave belligerently.
Frazzled wrote:
Out of interest, is it a classic car?
***Just rare and distinguishable (Volvo 1800es).
Pulling them over because "they might be stolen" is no different. Its not reasonable suspicion. Again you're not supporting the argument.
You and I both know that vehicles aren't held to the same standard for searches and/or stops.
Carroll established that in freakin' 1925.
However you of all people should be able to articulate the fact that if you get stopped and engaged by a police officer--even about something as simple as "are you being safe?", it's a not so great idea to behave belligerently.
You've not been stopped constantly however. That changes things.
And Cannerus didn't say he's been stopped by the same officer or anything untoward.
Just a helpful hint: but if multiple police officers stop you and question you, you might want to rethink your behavior because you're doing SOMETHING that is raising a red flag.
Kanluwen wrote:And Cannerus didn't say he's been stopped by the same officer or anything untoward.
Just a helpful hint: but if multiple police officers stop you and question you, you might want to rethink your behavior because you're doing SOMETHING that is raising a red flag.
No thats your words. You said same officer. I said being stopped.
Helpful hint, unless you've been stopped repeatedly and weren't doing anything wrong MAYBE YOU SHOULD SHUT THE feth UP.
Jihadin wrote:Law Enforcement and the military are in the same boat
If I were you I would NOT put yourself in the same boat as police.
Yeah I don't see that many similarities other than wearing a uniform frankly. We dont get the opportunity to flagrantly take the piss out of nice normal members of the public who are minding their own business, unless you shoot one.
Kanluwen wrote:And Cannerus didn't say he's been stopped by the same officer or anything untoward.
Just a helpful hint: but if multiple police officers stop you and question you, you might want to rethink your behavior because you're doing SOMETHING that is raising a red flag.
No thats your words. You said same officer. I said being stopped.
Because there's clearly some vast conspiracy where officers give each other the details of "that Cannerus guy, always walking around without a shirt on. We stop him and bother him, for funsies of course".
"Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT--, and will usually result in the officer performing the stop being immediately put into a state of "Hrmh...he's getting this worked up over something as simple as me telling him to stay safe. Maybe I should get his ID and check to see if there's outstanding warrants for him or he has a record?".
Helpful hint, unless you've been stopped repeatedly and weren't doing anything wrong MAYBE YOU SHOULD SHUT THE feth UP.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th Amendment
In the United States criminal court system, probable cause refers to facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed.
Kanluwen wrote:"Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT-
Thats your opinion, and its wrong.
Helpful hint, unless you've been stopped repeatedly and weren't doing anything wrong MAYBE YOU SHOULD SHUT THE feth UP.
There's the Frazzled we all know.
Indeed, I'm quite the law and order guy, and have no particular issues with cops now (translation I view them as lowly as every other human - no trust a human to do a wienerdog's job!) but defintiely did then. And I wasn't beven violtating the cardinal misdemeanor of DWB.
Kanluwen wrote:
"Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT--, and will usually result in the officer performing the stop being immediately put into a state of "Hrmh...he's getting this worked up over something as simple as me telling him to stay safe. Maybe I should get his ID and check to see if there's outstanding warrants for him or he has a record?".
It sure is a reason to be belligerent, as "Stay safe" isn't reasonable suspicion and doesn't qualify for a Terry stop. The citizen is permitted to get as wroked up as he wants. After the pleasantries of greetings if an officer pursues conversation, and I'm feeling game and not busy he's treated to my favorite prepared line, "can I get your name and badge number before I provide you with any furthur information? If you intend to perform a frisk I am carrying a loaded automatic pistol in/at (location), and (potentially dangerous poket contents)."
The beauty of being innocent of a crime is that you can be as belligerent as you want to a person who is permitted to lie to you, but you are not permitted to lie back to. Standing up for your rights isnt a crime.
Kanluwen wrote:"Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT-
Thats your opinion, and its wrong.
It's also, seemingly, the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, as evidenced by the outcome of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada et al.
Then the most racist, sexist guy I've ever met became one. I liked the chap in question mind, despite his despicable views. But God forbid what kind of department would hire him.
Kanluwen wrote:
"Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT--, and will usually result in the officer performing the stop being immediately put into a state of "Hrmh...he's getting this worked up over something as simple as me telling him to stay safe. Maybe I should get his ID and check to see if there's outstanding warrants for him or he has a record?".
It sure is a reason to be belligerent, as "Stay safe" isn't reasonable suspicion and doesn't qualify for a Terry stop. The citizen is permitted to get as wroked up as he wants. After the pleasantries of greetings if an officer pursues conversation, and I'm feeling game and not busy he's treated to my favorite prepared line, "can I get your name and badge number before I provide you with any furthur information? If you intend to perform a frisk I am carrying a loaded automatic pistol in/at (location), and (potentially dangerous poket contents)."
The beauty of being innocent of a crime is that you can be as belligerent as you want to a person who is permitted to lie to you, but you are not permitted to lie back to. Standing up for your rights isnt a crime.
And if you read Cannerus' posting, he hasn't actually ever been in a Terry stop.
But please. Keep going. You're about as kneejerk reactionary as Frazzled.
Which is exactly what Dakka needs. Another Frazzled.
Kanluwen wrote:"Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT-
Thats your opinion, and its wrong.
It's also, seemingly, the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, as evidenced by the outcome of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada et al.
Belligerence is not a crime. In general I wipe my ass with the US court system for so many reasons. On the positive I'm certain whatever they wrote is being misrepresented by you, but again I could care less. Further you're being sophistic. Its still your opinion that its fine. From experience being routinely pulled over makes you dislike cops intensely. If you have a problem with that I could care less.
I'll note here I've not yet attacked the police yet...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
AustonT wrote:
Kanluwen wrote: "Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT--, and will usually result in the officer performing the stop being immediately put into a state of "Hrmh...he's getting this worked up over something as simple as me telling him to stay safe. Maybe I should get his ID and check to see if there's outstanding warrants for him or he has a record?".
It sure is a reason to be belligerent, as "Stay safe" isn't reasonable suspicion and doesn't qualify for a Terry stop. The citizen is permitted to get as wroked up as he wants. After the pleasantries of greetings if an officer pursues conversation, and I'm feeling game and not busy he's treated to my favorite prepared line, "can I get your name and badge number before I provide you with any furthur information? If you intend to perform a frisk I am carrying a loaded automatic pistol in/at (location), and (potentially dangerous poket contents)." The beauty of being innocent of a crime is that you can be as belligerent as you want to a person who is permitted to lie to you, but you are not permitted to lie back to. Standing up for your rights isnt a crime.
And if you read Cannerus' posting, he hasn't actually ever been in a Terry stop.
But please. Keep going. You're about as kneejerk reactionary as Frazzled.
Which is exactly what Dakka needs. Another Frazzled.
Personal snide comment from Kanluwen, how unexpected.
Let's all try and emulate the Fonz when we're wasting the precious grains of our lives,as they trickle away one by one, never to return debating on the internet.
Let's all try and emulate the Fonz when we're wasting the precious grains of our lives,as they trickle away one by one, never to return debating on the internet.
Thanks !
The Fonz reference is lost on me.
Kanluwen wrote:
AustonT wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
"Being stopped" alone is not enough of a reason to get belligerent--ESPECIALLY IN A HARMLESS CONTEXT--, and will usually result in the officer performing the stop being immediately put into a state of "Hrmh...he's getting this worked up over something as simple as me telling him to stay safe. Maybe I should get his ID and check to see if there's outstanding warrants for him or he has a record?".
It sure is a reason to be belligerent, as "Stay safe" isn't reasonable suspicion and doesn't qualify for a Terry stop. The citizen is permitted to get as wroked up as he wants. After the pleasantries of greetings if an officer pursues conversation, and I'm feeling game and not busy he's treated to my favorite prepared line, "can I get your name and badge number before I provide you with any furthur information? If you intend to perform a frisk I am carrying a loaded automatic pistol in/at (location), and (potentially dangerous poket contents)."
The beauty of being innocent of a crime is that you can be as belligerent as you want to a person who is permitted to lie to you, but you are not permitted to lie back to. Standing up for your rights isnt a crime.
And if you read Cannerus' posting, he hasn't actually ever been in a Terry stop.
But please. Keep going. You're about as kneejerk reactionary as Frazzled.
Which is exactly what Dakka needs. Another Frazzled.
You're right you referred to Terry. And then told Cannerus he needed to change what he's doing and not to be belligerent in a harmless context. I would rather put forth that the erosion of his 4A rights is a far from harmless situation and properly citing Terry allows him to walk away without providing information as a stop requires consent without reasonable suspicion. A reasoned and researched response is not a knee-jerk. YOU! YOU'RE LIKE FRAZZLED! that's a knee jerk. Have a good day.
AustonT wrote:
You're right you referred to Terry.
Yes. I did refer to Terry, as an "interesting case".
And then told Cannerus he needed to change what he's doing and not to be belligerent in a harmless context. I would rather put forth that the erosion of his 4A rights is a far from harmless situation and properly citing Terry allows him to walk away without providing information as a stop requires consent without reasonable suspicion. A reasoned and researched response is not a knee-jerk. YOU! YOU'RE LIKE FRAZZLED! that's a knee jerk. Have a good day.
Terry won't allow him to "walk away without providing information", as Terry has been further defined by the other two cases which I also referred him towards.
Kanluwen wrote:There's another case which was decided shortly before that, 2000's Illinois v. Wardlow.
This one stated that "Presence in a high-crime area, combined with unprovoked flight upon observing police officers, gives officers sufficient grounds to investigate further to determine if criminal activity is about take place."
Also: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada et al. in 2004 had another thing to say on the matter of identification.
"The Fourth Amendment allows officers, pursuant to a stop and frisk, to require a person to provide his or her name. The person may be arrested for refusing to comply".
Seeing as how:
1) We don't know where the incidents in place occurred.
2) We don't know exactly what was going on, outside of Cannerus saying he was "walking or running in exercise shorts with no shirt on".
3) No stop and frisk was done.
Kanluwen wrote:2) We don't know exactly what was going on, outside of Cannerus saying he was "walking or running in exercise shorts with no shirt on".
3) No stop and frisk was done.
Would you want to frisk Cannerus? I think there's something in the Geneva convention about "crimes against humanity..."
Good about cops:
*Have to deal with the dregs of society
*When you're running away, they are running towards.
*Occasional true believer (as SWMBO used to say).
Bad about cops:
*Have to deal with the dregs of society.
*Protect society, not you.
*Power tripping bad seed cops.
Or worse, suburbian cops that think they have something to prove, that they're "tougher on crime" than the urban cops even though they have less crime to deal with...
.. or, and this is always equally applicable, travel to various points in time with several of your friends, a somewhat anthropomorphic dog that tries to emulate you and a far out future space chick called "cupcake" who has a crush on you. Whilst trying to get back to 1957 Milwaukee.
rockerbikie wrote:I don't see a problem if the Police shoot at people with knives or guns.
Cops shooting knives at people is harsh.
It is but it is for the safety of the Public and the Police to stop him from attacking civilans if they plan to use a knife as a weapon.
I don't think you're getting the joke here (police shooting knives, at people). The power of da intranetz failz US!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Fonz reference is lost on me.
I think Redy means either 1. be cool; or 2. drive a Harley sportster over a tank filled with sharks. Obviously he could mean both. EHHHHHHH!!!!
suspicion. A reasoned and researched response is not a knee-jerk. YOU! YOU'RE LIKE FRAZZLED! that's a knee jerk. Have a good day.
Well there is a common consensus among the family that Frazzled is, indeed, a jerk. Have you been talking to my brother in law again?
That would so awesome. So efficent to arrest criminals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Or worse, suburbian cops that think they have something to prove, that they're "tougher on crime" than the urban cops even though they have less crime to deal with...
Police aren't tough unless they act like Dirty Harry.
Kanluwen wrote:In regards to your stoppage thing: look into "Terry v. Ohio" Cannerus.
Landmark case about stops, mostly dealing with context.
And actually they need a reason to ticket you. You don't just get ticketed "because", and if you do--you can challenge it.
QFT. No "interesting case" here.
Kanluwen wrote:
AustonT wrote:
You're right you referred to Terry.
Yes. I did refer to Terry, as an "interesting case".
And then told Cannerus he needed to change what he's doing and not to be belligerent in a harmless context. I would rather put forth that the erosion of his 4A rights is a far from harmless situation and properly citing Terry allows him to walk away without providing information as a stop requires consent without reasonable suspicion. A reasoned and researched response is not a knee-jerk. YOU! YOU'RE LIKE FRAZZLED! that's a knee jerk. Have a good day.
Terry won't allow him to "walk away without providing information", as Terry has been further defined by the other two cases which I also referred him towards.
bolded emphasis now mine
Kanluwen wrote:There's another case which was decided shortly before that, 2000's Illinois v. Wardlow.
This one stated that "Presence in a high-crime area, combined with unprovoked flight upon observing police officers, gives officers sufficient grounds to investigate further to determine if criminal activity is about take place."
Also: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada et al. in 2004 had another thing to say on the matter of identification.
"The Fourth Amendment allows officers, pursuant to a stop and frisk, to require a person to provide his or her name. The person may be arrested for refusing to comply".
Seeing as how:
1) We don't know where the incidents in place occurred.
2) We don't know exactly what was going on, outside of Cannerus saying he was "walking or running in exercise shorts with no shirt on".
3) No stop and frisk was done.
I'd say I'm right, and you're wrong.
1. Unprovoked flight is running from the cops, not saying I dot want to talk to you.
2. Doesn't matter see below
3. As a stop and frisk is refered to as a "Terry Stop" and one was not performed Hiibel does not apply and there is no specific requirement to Identify in Texas where he is listed as living on Dakka.
4. Without reasonable suspicion there is no compunction to detain under Terry, in other words consent is required. Lawful detainment is required for identification to be mandatory.
Since you decided to play that game, you weren't right before and you aren't right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
AustonT wrote:
The Fonz reference is lost on me.
Civilisation is over then. Elect the dead etc etc
T'was a general " be cool" plea.
.. or, and this is always equally applicable, travel to various points in time with several of your friends, a somewhat anthropomorphic dog that tries to emulate you and a far out future space chick called "cupcake" who has a crush on you. Whilst trying to get back to 1957 Milwaukee.
... or something.
I know who the Fonz is, just not what you were trying to convey. I'm still surprised when people don't understand the Jump the Shark reference. Obligatory emorkons
Melissia wrote:Or worse, suburbian cops that think they have something to prove, that they're "tougher on crime" than the urban cops even though they have less crime to deal with...
... ...Almost all of the negative experiences I've had when dealing with law enforcement occurred during encounters with " Suburb cops".
Most ( not all but most) Inner city cops that I grew up around seemed to have better things to do than flex muscle and prove how hardassed they were.
I was brought up to respect the fuzz, despite my anti-establishment views, and to be honest were I to be "pulled over" for nothing, I'd just be as non-confrontational as I can.
Avoid the argument and you'll be on your way faster, surely?
Everyone I know despises the police for one reason or another, some good and legit some petty and pointless. But in my experience treat them with respect and they will treat you with respect in turn.
unless you've done something wrong in which no matter you much respect you show then they are apparantly free to call you a f***ing idiot and a gimp as much as they want in a condecending superior manner whilst gloating on your cock-up irrelevant of the reasons and motivations for said incident.
I've had no problems with police. I have been pulled over for speeding a few times in my life. I've was polite, but took my ticket like a man. I knew what I was doing when I decided to drive faster than the posted limit.
Story time?
Highway 59, North of Houston, is infamous for the number of drug runners/smugglers taking their "wares" into the heartland of America. You'll see cars pulled over all of the time getting searched. When I was in college, I visited a friend in Houston with my roomate. On the way back, we got pulled over. I wasn't speeding.
The cop asked me to step to the back of the pickup and asked me a bunch of questions. He then went to my roomate and asked him the same questions. He let us go.
Looking back on it, the cop saw a couple of young punks wearing t-shirts and ball caps, with a couple of suitcases in the back of their pickup with out-of-state plates driving on a notorious drug route. After he decided to question us and found our stories matched up, we weren't searched and were sent on our way.
Is this a problem for some people? <--- Honest question.
kronk wrote:I've had no problems with police. I have been pulled over for speeding a few times in my life. I've was polite, but took my ticket like a man. I knew what I was doing when I decided to drive faster than the posted limit.
Story time?
Highway 59, North of Houston, is infamous for the number of drug runners/smugglers taking their "wares" into the heartland of America. You'll see cars pulled over all of the time getting searched. When I was in college, I visited a friend in Houston with my roomate. On the way back, we got pulled over. I wasn't speeding.
The cop asked me to step to the back of the pickup and asked me a bunch of questions. He then went to my roomate and asked him the same questions. He let us go.
Looking back on it, the cop saw a couple of young punks wearing t-shirts and ball caps, with a couple of suitcases in the back of their pickup with out-of-state plates driving on a notorious drug route. After he decided to question us and found our stories matched up, we weren't searched and were sent on our way.
Is this a problem for some people? <--- Honest question.
That wasn't Diboll was it? The problem with being stopped on 59 is that you're stopped in East Texas. Where do you think Conrad got the idea for Heart of Darkness from?
EDIT: Want to know fear? Want to know terror? Go to the Marshall Walmart at 9.00 at night on a Saturday. Bring a tape recorder. Later, after you have recovered your sight, play the tape recorder back and throw back a shot every time your hear yourself screaming into the microphone "SWEET MOTHER OF GOD WHAT IS THAT!" It will deaden the pain.
Is this a problem for some people? <--- Honest question.
I don't mind them when i've done something wrong. I mind the arrogance that comes with quite often comes with that or when they lie on forms about what they've searched you for. :/
Is this a problem for some people? <--- Honest question.
I don't mind them when i've done something wrong. I mind the arrogance that comes with quite often comes with that or when they lie on forms about what they've searched you for. :/
Lying on forms and such is a dick move. I agree with you, there Nomsheep.
Experienced the same sort of stop as you Kronk, though it was in a " known bad neighborhood"( Not a "rich" area) and not a " known drug route"..
Both Cops ripped the car my friend and I were in damn near apart, called back up...continued to question us on end ...though we had absolutely nothing on us at all, asked us where we " threw the dope"...repeatedly...searched us...repeatedly...and after almost an hour of detaining us, all the while finding nothing..finally told us to " get the feth out of the area and if they saw us there again we'd go to jail"...which was pretty funny...as we both lived in that neighborhood.
Now, during this entire situation...neither myself nor my buddy mouthed off, really said very little to the cops at all...other than answer some of their questions...however when my friend asked why exactly we'd been stopped one officer replied ...and I qoute " Well look at ya.."
Should note we were both wearing " Punk" attire and had kooky hair cuts/colors...
So...yes a bit of a problem with that sort of thing.
FITZZ wrote: Experienced the same sort of stop as you Kronk, though it was in a " known bad neighborhood"( Not a "rich" area) and not a " known drug route"..
Both Cops ripped the car my friend and I were in damn near apart, called back up...continued to question us on end ...though we had absolutely nothing on us at all, asked us where we " threw the dope"...repeatedly...searched us...repeatedly...and after almost an hour of detaining us, all the while finding nothing..finally told us to " get the feth out of the area and if they saw us there again we'd go to jail"...which was pretty funny...as we both lived in that neighborhood.
Now, during this entire situation...neither myself nor my buddy mouthed off, really said very little to the cops at all...other than answer some of their questions...however when my friend asked why exactly we'd been stopped one officer replied ...and I qoute " Well look at ya.."
Should note we were both wearing " Punk" attire and had kooky hair cuts/colors...
So...yes a bit of a problem with that sort of thing.
Maybe you should have taken off the clown makeup?
Fittz responding to a polite request to provide his ID:
FITZZ wrote: Didn't have the clown face on that time Frazz...imagine if I did the situation may have ended simular to that video.
Except of course if you were in the aforementioned East Texas...
...You know, the whole time I was in Texas ( Houston) I only had two run ins with any cops and both times they were both pretty decent guys, one was a bit..." cowboyish"...but for the most part neither was as "hardassed" as I expected Texas cops to be....Gulfport Mississippi on the other hand.. ...I'd sooner run through hell in gasoline soaked underwear than deal with them again.
DIDM wrote:as tired as you are, there are many many more who are tired of what the police have become
if you can't see a problem with modern policing then you are one of THEM
I can't see a problem with modern policing--outside of the crummy pay, the lack of educational and ethical admission standards, the constant hate shoveled their way, the attempts by protesters to always coordinate it so that the police are videotaped "throwing the first punch" whilst the police video which is unedited and not available to the general public will show that the protesters had been trying to ramp up the situation for hours beforehand, etc.
Seriously. You want better police? You have a better pay standard, a better protection system within the organization for those willing to compromise the "wall of silence" to report issues they've observed, etc.
As it stands now, whistleblowers will generally not come forward. Why? The job's stressful enough without having to worry about knives at your back from the people who are supposed to be watching it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
not talking about protests at all
I live i a city where the cops shoot first and then start thinking
Cops think they have more power than they do, not all cops, but a very big percentage. My brother is a cop in San Francisco, he tells me all sorts of messed up gak that the cops there do too.
Modern policing needs a complete overhaul, it is just a bloody mess ATM.
Kilkrazy wrote:Ordinary people don't necessarily make much distinction between the police, the courts and the government. They are all "The Man".
FITZZ wrote: So...yes a bit of a problem with that sort of thing.
And you should have a problem with that experience. I certainly do.
But it's very different from mine. What are your thoughts on what happened to me, out of curiousity.
Overall, I'm not crazy about the idea of "profiling" an area...but, it sounds as if you and your friend were dealing with officers who were acting in a professional manner and just trying to do what there job entailed.
I climbed a building with my friend, got pulled by the police because they thought we were gonna break in, which is fair enough sincethere are several banks next door. He 'searched' us for drugs by getting us to open our baccy tins and marked down that we had been searched for stolen property.
I didn't think it was legal for a cop to search us on his own?
Blackskullandy wrote:Just playing devil's advocate here... That statement seems to assume that the Police are held accountable for every breech in protocol and that no cop ever covers up for another. Which i find hard to believe.
No, it doesn't. It becomes a simple, obvious matter of what is, and what is not recorded on the camera. The cameras are supposed to run for the duration of the shift, and if they suddenly aren't working for the ten minutes in which the dubious arrest was made, then it just doesn't matter that other officers are willing to cover up the issue - there is no footage, and that automatically makes the officer's claims dubious.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Just a helpful hint: but if multiple police officers stop you and question you, you might want to rethink your behavior because you're doing SOMETHING that is raising a red flag.
That red flag could be owning a bad car while living in a good neighbourhood (because you're forgoing the flash car while you pay your mortgage down, something that should be encouraged, but often just ends up getting you hassled by cops).
It's just a sad reality that 'reasonable suspicion' is a very grey area, and the thing you're doing to raise suspicion is not necessarily something you can or should stop doing. This means some honest people can get jerked around by an overly zealous police force for stuff that is not of their doing.
People that post comments on youtube should be jailed as a generality. I've never read a comment string on youtube that didn't make me sad for humanity.
ShumaGorath wrote:People that post comments on youtube should be jailed as a generality. I've never read a comment string on youtube that didn't make me sad for humanity.
Blackskullandy wrote:Just playing devil's advocate here... That statement seems to assume that the Police are held accountable for every breech in protocol and that no cop ever covers up for another. Which i find hard to believe.
No, it doesn't. It becomes a simple, obvious matter of what is, and what is not recorded on the camera. The cameras are supposed to run for the duration of the shift, and if they suddenly aren't working for the ten minutes in which the dubious arrest was made, then it just doesn't matter that other officers are willing to cover up the issue - there is no footage, and that automatically makes the officer's claims dubious.
None of which matters if their superior is covering their ass... Or asses. 'Technical difficulties' can happen at awfully convenient times.
Too many cops abuse their power and harass people for no reason. Meanwhile homeless people are fething 50 ft from where I work and nothing is being done about it. It's cool though, give me a fething $200 ticket for having my brights on at 3 in the fething morning when no one is else is even on the damn road.
Blackskullandy wrote:None of which matters if their superior is covering their ass... Or asses. 'Technical difficulties' can happen at awfully convenient times.
Consider two situations, in one an officer is part of a police force that doesn't have cameras. That officer has someone up for resisting arrest, and we're left with believing the policeman, or the feral that says the officer started beating on him for no reason. Unless something very odd is happening, we'll believe the policeman every time, because we really don't have a choice not to.
In the second situation, lapel cameras are standard, and just happen to have malfunctioned before the arrest took place. We are no longer used to just having to take the police at their word, instead we're used to having evidence of the accused doing whatever it is the accused is accused of having done. So when the cop says 'oh the camera broke down for bit' we are automatically more suspicious.
And when that officer is investigated for having his camera malfunction before five or six other arrests, well then things start looking really bad.
We all know the police close rank to protect their own. The point is that is much harder to do with these cameras in use.
Blackskullandy wrote:None of which matters if their superior is covering their ass... Or asses. 'Technical difficulties' can happen at awfully convenient times.
Consider two situations, in one an officer is part of a police force that doesn't have cameras. That officer has someone up for resisting arrest, and we're left with believing the policeman, or the feral that says the officer started beating on him for no reason. Unless something very odd is happening, we'll believe the policeman every time, because we really don't have a choice not to.
In the second situation, lapel cameras are standard, and just happen to have malfunctioned before the arrest took place. We are no longer used to just having to take the police at their word, instead we're used to having evidence of the accused doing whatever it is the accused is accused of having done. So when the cop says 'oh the camera broke down for bit' we are automatically more suspicious.
And when that officer is investigated for having his camera malfunction before five or six other arrests, well then things start looking really bad.
We all know the police close rank to protect their own. The point is that is much harder to do with these cameras in use.
But around here you don't even have to use that excuse.
Whenever our lovely Oklahoma Highway Patrol is accused of wrong doing, they will proceed with an internal investigation that takes years, during which time no footage from the event is released. Because following a FOI request takes a back seat in order not to harm an internal investigation.
It is a battle we are constantly fighting with the Department of Public Safety.
d-usa wrote:But around here you don't even have to use that excuse.
Whenever our lovely Oklahoma Highway Patrol is accused of wrong doing, they will proceed with an internal investigation that takes years, during which time no footage from the event is released. Because following a FOI request takes a back seat in order not to harm an internal investigation.
It is a battle we are constantly fighting with the Department of Public Safety.
Of course you don't have to have that excuse, because you don't have cameras on every officer, on all the time. If you did, they need to invent excuses why the images aren't available.
Blackskullandy wrote:None of which matters if their superior is covering their ass... Or asses. 'Technical difficulties' can happen at awfully convenient times.
Consider two situations, in one an officer is part of a police force that doesn't have cameras. That officer has someone up for resisting arrest, and we're left with believing the policeman, or the feral that says the officer started beating on him for no reason. Unless something very odd is happening, we'll believe the policeman every time, because we really don't have a choice not to.
In the second situation, lapel cameras are standard, and just happen to have malfunctioned before the arrest took place. We are no longer used to just having to take the police at their word, instead we're used to having evidence of the accused doing whatever it is the accused is accused of having done. So when the cop says 'oh the camera broke down for bit' we are automatically more suspicious.
And when that officer is investigated for having his camera malfunction before five or six other arrests, well then things start looking really bad.
We all know the police close rank to protect their own. The point is that is much harder to do with these cameras in use.
Oh, I quite understand how it should work, but at least as far as the UK goes we simply don't have any chance of that kind of transparency. The 'Old boys club' will win out every time. A lot of our Police Forces are actually run as corporations, and their loyalty goes not to the Law and certainly not to the public, but rather to the shareholders.
Under some circumstances you can get a ticket for that, yes.
If you approach a gate to a military base with your brights on you risk being shot. The reason is that the brights can be used to temporarily blind someone when you're approaching them, I'm sure that if you're driving around and have had a person driving towards you with their brights on you know how bothersome they can be.
Also the reason behind a cop covering another cop's rear is the fact that you never know if you're going to need that guy to save your ass in a real situation. Think about it, would you rather have someone on goods term with you have your back or would you rather have someone who's mad at you have your back? The same applies to military men, if one of them gets drunk then the others try to get them out of trouble as much as possible because there may be a day when he has to save their asses.
daedalus wrote:Bothersome, sure. An offense? I don't know. On a lot of the newer cars, I feel as though a lot of people's 'dims' are offensively bright.
It all comes down to the amount of relative danger an officer can personally think you're causing. If you're on a twisting road with your brights on and could blind the oncoming vehicle enough that it could go off the road then you can potentially be charged. Tickets are mostly used to coerce people to drive safely or at least in a way that conforms to the way the law wants you to drive. Its all personal and context, you could be driving speed limit in the rain and get charged with reckless driving if there are kids playing nearby. Heck, you can get ticketed for doing speed limit on a sunny day if kids are playing nearby because there is a potential that the sun would have enough glare to temporarily blind you and make you hit a kid. Its all about context and personality of the officer.
Cops have to deal with a lot of garbage ranging from seeing people die to pulling over someone for running a red light. I know the cops around here have dealt with things like a father sawing his elementary school child's head off.
Blackskullandy wrote:Oh, I quite understand how it should work, but at least as far as the UK goes we simply don't have any chance of that kind of transparency. The 'Old boys club' will win out every time. A lot of our Police Forces are actually run as corporations, and their loyalty goes not to the Law and certainly not to the public, but rather to the shareholders.
Sure, that kind of thing is going on to a greater or lesser extent in every police force in the world.
My point is that the cameras aren't relying on a 'wouldn't it be nice if' world. They are a response to the world we have, in which police forces will protect their own. The fact is the cameras make it much harder for police forces to shut down investigations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Also the reason behind a cop covering another cop's rear is the fact that you never know if you're going to need that guy to save your ass in a real situation. Think about it, would you rather have someone on goods term with you have your back or would you rather have someone who's mad at you have your back? The same applies to military men, if one of them gets drunk then the others try to get them out of trouble as much as possible because there may be a day when he has to save their asses.
Sure, but it isn't just about a potential physical threat down the line, it's also that at some future date it could be your ass on the line for some breach. The thing to think about there is that in addition to public claims of real abuse, there's countless silly or even downright fraudulent cases.
And then there's the problem that most genuine cases won't be entirely clear, it might be just another fraudulent claim, or it could be the real deal. Are you going to hang another cop out to dry because you don't know, or are you going to help him, and expect he'll help you when you get a complaint against you?
sebster wrote:And then there's the problem that most genuine cases won't be entirely clear, it might be just another fraudulent claim, or it could be the real deal. Are you going to hang another cop out to dry because you don't know, or are you going to help him, and expect he'll help you when you get a complaint against you?
Exactly, in fact if you're an EMT and get pulled over chances are they'll let you off with a warning. That was the third thing we learned in our EMT class, the first was legal issues.
Should the people enforcing the law not be held accountable to it then? Or should we be able to expect the police to have the integrity to ensure that their entire team plays by the rules? If someone was supposed to be covering my back, i would want to know that they were a stand up guy who was doing it because it was the right thing to donot because i had the dirt on them, or they owed their continued employment to my complicity in covering up their mistakes/offenses. Surely law enforcement should hold themselves to a higher standard, or they don't have a leg to stand on...
Depending on how bright your brights are then yes.
On a similiar note there as a massive difference on a car/bike between what's safe and what's legal. it's often much easier to be safe than it is legal.
Blackskullandy wrote:Should the people enforcing the law not be held accountable to it then? Or should we be able to expect the police to have the integrity to ensure that their entire team plays by the rules? If someone was supposed to be covering my back, i would want to know that they were a stand up guy who was doing it because it was the right thing to donot because i had the dirt on them, or they owed their continued employment to my complicity in covering up their mistakes/offenses. Surely law enforcement should hold themselves to a higher standard, or they don't have a leg to stand on...
You would think so but he's the one with the power, argue that point with them though and see how far you get.
You would think so but he's the one with the power, argue that point with them though and see how far you get.
Nom
I'm always scrupulously polite when dealing with the police and even when they condescend and snipe cos i know from experience that nothing bugs them more than disrespect and sarcasm...
Blackskullandy wrote:
I'm always scrupulously polite when dealing with the police and even when they condescend and snipe cos i know from experience that nothing bugs them more than disrespect and sarcasm...
... not even crime.
I am also it's not worth the gak you get otherwise and from personal experience, I agree with you. my friend turned something rather easy and quick into a night in the cells by (as they believed) being cocky and laughing at them (the truth was he was just high and scared out of his mind, it was nervous laughter). but It's annoying when they get away with acting that way towards you but you don't. :/
I'm suuuper pro-police and have argued as such in MANY threads here, and I am pro-camera.
The only issue is that people often misinterpret video, so there will be harder fights sometimes. For instance, that mistaken taser shooting a while back where the department had swapped an officer's gear so much that his muscle memory had the gun and taser backwards, it was only proven because a grainy surveillance video showed his thumb swiping the gun where the taser selector switch should have been. A tiny tiny detail proved the whole thing.
Issue is, average joe sees it and doesn't want to listen to any of that pig nonsense and decides the cop is guilty.
Doesn't mean I don't think average joe should SEE it, just that he very well might come to the wrong conclusion when he does.
nomsheep wrote:
I am also it's not worth the gak you get otherwise and from personal experience, I agree with you. my friend turned something rather easy and quick into a night in the cells by (as they believed) being cocky and laughing at them (the truth was he was just high and scared out of his mind, it was nervous laughter). but It's annoying when they get away with acting that way towards you but you don't. :/
nom
A lot of folks I know are nervous about dealing with the police too (high or not). I believe that this is due to the apparent assumption by the police that everyone must have done something wrong. They certainly seem to approach people with this attitude (in my experience) YMMV.
A lot of folks I know are nervous about dealing with the police too (high or not). I believe that this is due to the apparent assumption by the police that everyone must have done something wrong. They certainly seem to approach people with this attitude (in my experience) YMMV.
I'm only nervous around them in a situation where i've done something wrong, it's stupidly late and they approach me or where i'm not sure if i've done something wrong. But that's me not them. As a general rule they are just people like us and me and my mates have had several random conversations with random policemen about nothing and they were polite and friendly.
They even put up with me running around a corner yelling 'stop police' at them then realising they actually were police. Not my proudest moment. (this was during the london riots, so our town was on alert for kids starting trouble).
They have never really adopted a 'everyone is guilty unless they can prove otherwise' attitude with me or if they did I hadn't noticed because I was guilty.
nomsheep wrote:I'm only nervous around them in a situation where i've done something wrong, it's stupidly late and they approach me or where i'm not sure if i've done something wrong. But that's me not them. As a general rule they are just people like us and me and my mates have had several random conversations with random policemen about nothing and they were polite and friendly.
They even put up with me running around a corner yelling 'stop police' at them then realising they actually were police. Not my proudest moment. (this was during the london riots, so our town was on alert for kids starting trouble).
They have never really adopted a 'everyone is guilty unless they can prove otherwise' attitude with me or if they did I hadn't noticed because I was guilty.
Nom
It's entirely possible that the way I look and carry myself influenced the way I was percieved by them... 12'' blue/red/purple Mohawk, full of piercings, covered in tats, confident (some say arrogant) posture, stomping through middle class suburbia. Granny's worst nightmare!
nomsheep wrote:I'm only nervous around them in a situation where i've done something wrong, it's stupidly late and they approach me or where i'm not sure if i've done something wrong. But that's me not them. As a general rule they are just people like us and me and my mates have had several random conversations with random policemen about nothing and they were polite and friendly.
They even put up with me running around a corner yelling 'stop police' at them then realising they actually were police. Not my proudest moment. (this was during the london riots, so our town was on alert for kids starting trouble).
They have never really adopted a 'everyone is guilty unless they can prove otherwise' attitude with me or if they did I hadn't noticed because I was guilty.
Nom
It's entirely possible that the way I look and carry myself influenced the way I was percieved by them... 12'' blue/red/purple Mohawk, full of piercings, covered in tats, confident (some say arrogant) posture, stomping through middle class suburbia. Granny's worst nightmare!
I've been involved with the training of new police officers, and bias like that is really hard to train out unfortunately. The biggest group that has this issue is the very old and the very young cops. It's getting better over time though.
Blackskullandy wrote:
It's entirely possible that the way I look and carry myself influenced the way I was percieved by them... 12'' blue/red/purple Mohawk, full of piercings, covered in tats, confident (some say arrogant) posture, stomping through middle class suburbia. Granny's worst nightmare!
That could have something to do with it. Mohawks always give off a bad impression for some reason.
Whereas I look like your typical 'emo' kid so I apparantly look young and innocent.
Blackskullandy wrote: It's entirely possible that the way I look and carry myself influenced the way I was percieved by them... 12'' blue/red/purple Mohawk, full of piercings, covered in tats, confident (some say arrogant) posture, stomping through middle class suburbia. Granny's worst nightmare!
That could have something to do with it. Mohawks always give off a bad impression for some reason.
Nom
Its all front! Honest! Most of the people I know who are brave enough to express themselves in such a way are the nicest, most sweetnatured folk one could ever hope to meet. And generally quite passive too, despite the negative assosciations some people have.
Blackskullandy wrote:
Its all front! Honest! Most of the people I know who are brave enough to express themselves in such a way are the nicest, most sweetnatured folk one could ever hope to meet. And generally quite passive too, despite the negative assosciations some people have.
edit for spelling
Same,(my closest friend dresses in a similiar manner to this) in my experience they also tend to be honest to the point of bluntness(which i prefer). whereas I avoid those who dress in a similiar way to me as they tend to be rather sweet sweet to your face but backstab you at the first opportunity. This is stereotyping at it's worst but it's all from experience though YMMV.
Rented Tritium wrote:I'm suuuper pro-police and have argued as such in MANY threads here, and I am pro-camera.
The only issue is that people often misinterpret video, so there will be harder fights sometimes. For instance, that mistaken taser shooting a while back where the department had swapped an officer's gear so much that his muscle memory had the gun and taser backwards, it was only proven because a grainy surveillance video showed his thumb swiping the gun where the taser selector switch should have been. A tiny tiny detail proved the whole thing.
Issue is, average joe sees it and doesn't want to listen to any of that pig nonsense and decides the cop is guilty.
Doesn't mean I don't think average joe should SEE it, just that he very well might come to the wrong conclusion when he does.
I used to be pro-police now I find myself in a sort of Missouri Limbo. Missouri as in the "show me" state. I think it was building there until this May when a regional SWAT team shot and ex-Marine Jose Guerena. At first it seemed pretty legit, suspected drug cartel bad guy points gun at cops and gets waxed. After the dust settled I had a hard time believing that a drug dealer works 12 hour night shifts at a mine. Or that the officers didn't meet up and decide on their story (there's a tape where their talking prior to their official statements) or the video where you can see them shooting into the house. 6 months later no arrests have been made and there's still a dead guy and what looks to be a team of cops with blood on their hands.
Now I'm wary of being pro-police, I'm not anti and probably won't ever be, but it really has become an issue where I don't trust EITHER the suspect or the police until there's proof either way. And I'm still skeptical. Like that CBP agent that going to jail to handcuffing and slamming a perp...really? Who did that make sense to? Well I guess about 12 people, for shame.
I've always been good. Only one run in with police, and that was kinda random. Id been out drinking with a few mates and one, a rather large fella of 6'5" and around 300lbs, got himself extremely gak faced and fell asleep in the road... At 2am...myself and a few others tried to wake him up and failed, just as we were wondering what to do a police van cruised around the corner. They were super nice about it and helped us get him into the back of the van, they asked us where we were headed (about 1 mile away) and proceeded to drive us all back to my house.. They even helped unload him and carried him too the sofa. Nice guys!
Blackskullandy wrote:Should the people enforcing the law not be held accountable to it then? Or should we be able to expect the police to have the integrity to ensure that their entire team plays by the rules? If someone was supposed to be covering my back, i would want to know that they were a stand up guy who was doing it because it was the right thing to donot because i had the dirt on them, or they owed their continued employment to my complicity in covering up their mistakes/offenses. Surely law enforcement should hold themselves to a higher standard, or they don't have a leg to stand on...
Of course they should be accountable. We work to make them accountable wherever practically possible.
But the plain and simple reality is that policemen cop one hell of a lot of flack, even when they do their jobs well. It is inevitable that this will produce an un vs them situation. Recognising and understanding that doesn't mean accepting it, but instead is a very important step in resolving the issue.
...I'd sooner run through hell in gasoline soaked underwear than deal with them again.