 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / March 2008These are the people we should trust to protect us.
Here's the most recent in a series of stories about the brutal beating of a female DWI suspect. http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008802230346 Here's a link to pictures. You can judge for yourself how likely it is that she sustained these injuries simply by falling down. http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=D9&Dato=20080219&Kateg ori=NEWS03&Lopenr=802200801&Ref=PH  Signature________________________________ It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion. WILLIAM RALPH INGE, D. D. 1860-1954 Here's a link to the video. Please note that the suspect was not obviously injured at the beginning and that, in the end, she's laying on the floor in a pool of blood. http://www.break.com/index/drunk-chick-beat-by-cop.html Lee >Here's a link to the video. Please note that the suspect was not obviously >injured at the beginning and that, in the end, she's laying on the floor in >a pool of blood. > >http://www.break.com/index/drunk-chick-beat-by-cop.html Dont forget this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWF_9b8ZJNw >>Here's a link to the video. Please note that the suspect was not obviously >>injured at the beginning and that, in the end, she's laying on the floor [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Dont forget this one: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWF_9b8ZJNw I'd need to see the whole tape on this one- looks like crack ho got what she had coming. Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:57:37 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in rec.scuba: >>>Here's a link to the video. Please note that the suspect was not obviously >>>injured at the beginning and that, in the end, she's laying on the floor [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'd need to see the whole tape on this one- looks like crack ho got what >she had coming. Are you f.cking nuts? The sherriff's dept. is claiming that they took he clothes off because they were afraid she would use them to hurt herself (hang herself). Well, she should have immediately been sent to a hospital psych ward if that were the case where she could have been monitored every second of every hour. You don't have a bunch of male cops/jailers hold her down while she's being disrobed. You don't leave her naked in her cell for 6 hours. Hell, they could have left her cuffed with all of her clothes on. What they did was totally f.cked up. > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:57:37 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in rec.scuba: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > her cuffed with all of her clothes on. What they did was totally > f.cked up. Have you been in jail a lot? Didn't think so. She was asked if she was armed, or suicidal, and refused to answer, at least coherently. That's an -automatic- strip search in any jail in the country. Speaking from personal experience, either you can take your clothes off, or they will. The number, and gender, of officers removing her clothes were -absolutely- and -completely- her choice. The average county jail doesn't have 7 women working the night shift, she was lucky there were two or three. I'd bet a cold beer that she started showing her a.s the second the cops showed up to the dispute. I'd bet the other 5 that she was not only drunk, but drugged. The fact that they had to wrestle her down was her choice, and, resisting arrest, for which she could be charged. In my professional opinion, they went out of their way to do their job, protect themselves, and not hurt the prisoner. Like I said, show me the whole tape. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm0R4FGffX0 Here's someone's sweet little Pea. This is what gets Rodney Kinged: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkfkQcb45Lo&feature=related But here's the truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGXH-MwUt5E&feature=related I'm mean, it's not like he didn't get her door and help her out of the car. Think she knew she was on camera while she was faking the orgasm? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMpEr-MOSyk&feature=related This bitch got her due. The tape was cut for viewing, she was swinging and spitting at the cop, her actions inside the cruiser speak for themselves. The news story was ridiculously biased. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQXoczxzwYk&feature=related Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com > Like I said, show me the whole tape. Reports are that the video was turned off. You'll note from the original link I sent that one minute she's being wrestled to the ground, still looking fine, and the next, she's on the ground in a pool of her own blood. According to the department, it's standard procedure to turn the tape off. The officer responsible has been fired, is being sued by at least two others for similar incidents, and has other complaints of excess force filed. Look at the still pictures of the injuries to the women and then tell me one more time that she had it coming. Lee >> Like I said, show me the whole tape. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Lee Myself, I was referring to the "chick getting stripped" tape. The one you posted, I hope that dude has a good lawyer. Clearly, we can't see the entire tape, because he turned it off. Conversely, there's a tape on youtube of a guy in a cell beating his own head against the wall and cell bench while decrying "police brutality". Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com >>> Like I said, show me the whole tape. >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Conversely, there's a tape on youtube of a guy in a cell beating his > own head against the wall and cell bench while decrying "police brutality". The issue is that the police do not police their own. There was a time when the police could be (somewhat) trusted. No more. THe "blue line" allows bad officers to continue to be police officers. If the police would get rid of the bad officers, and have some professionalism in their ranks, the not only would these issues be few, but more importantly, the public would trust the police more. But they (the police) don't, and therefore, we (the public) don't. I know some fine officers, who I respect and trust. I know many more who I neither respect nor trust. The sad fact is that there are more of the latter than the former. Until the police department refuses to allow bad behavior in their ranks, nothing will change. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 On Feb 24, 7:50 am, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote: > The issue is that the police do not police their own. There was a time > when the police could be (somewhat) trusted. No more. THe "blue line" > allows bad officers to continue to be police officers. If the police > would get rid of the bad officers, and have some professionalism in > their ranks, the not only would these issues be few, but more > importantly, the public would trust the police more. You're speaking as if police corruption and/or police brutality are something new. I'm not at all sure where you get that idea. Power corrupts. Policing is power. Police have been corrupt since policing began. Remember the Sheriff of Nottingham? It was customary for police to take bribes in many parts of this country until very recent times. The advent of the videotape recorder and the internet, along with anticorruption campaigns in many forces, internal-affairs departments that do "police their own", citizen oversight committees, successful victim lawsuits, etc., have actually brought police corruption and brutality to an all-time low. In the old days, videos like the ones here could have been shot daily at police stations around the nation. Today, police brutality actually makes the news. Police have a stressful job. When you get on the wrong side of them, the outcome isn't always in your favor. Even if they're in the wrong, it's always safest to cooperate. In article <110efc8b-853a-42fb-8def- eabb1fc2f62a@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, mossman@qnet.com says... -Police have a stressful job. When you get on the wrong side of them, -the outcome isn't always in your favor. Even if they're in the wrong, -it's always safest to cooperate. and drunks can behave very, very, very badly. drunks should not look for much sympathy. - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > In article <110efc8b-853a-42fb-8def- > eabb1fc2f...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, moss...@qnet.com says... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and drunks can behave very, very, very badly. > drunks should not look for much sympathy. At least not until they sober up. That's when it start to hurt. >>>> Like I said, show me the whole tape. >>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Until the police department refuses to allow bad behavior in their ranks, > nothing will change. I don't see quite that dark a picture, myself. My opinion is that the vast majority of cops are honest, or as honest as you or I, and they don't abuse their power any more than anyone else in a power position does. You wanna see a bunch of armed robbery, bunko-steering fakir/crooks, study the Congress. They're doing you on a scale cops that speed on the way to work can only dream about. I grew up with cops, and about half my friend's fathers were cops. I would have been a cop but for a little youthfully exuberant civil disobedience when I got out of the service. With the exception of one time, where, in my opinion, I got off light, I never got abused by cops in scores of incidents. Once, after and interstate high speed pursuit, some Mass Staties kicked the sh.t out of me when I was cuffed, but I was wise cracking them about slow Ford cruisers. So they tenderized me a bit. :-) I took it like a man. Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com >>>>> Like I said, show me the whole tape. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > I don't see quite that dark a picture, myself. THe issue is that such behavior is accepted (or at least ignored) more than it once was. > My opinion is that the vast majority of cops are honest, or as honest > as you or I, and they don't abuse their power any more than anyone else > in a power position does. That's true. But because bad behavior is accepted or ignored it is effectively encouraged. > You wanna see a bunch of armed robbery, bunko-steering fakir/crooks, > study the Congress. No question there. > They're doing you on a scale cops that speed on the way to work can > only dream about. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > With the exception of one time, where, in my opinion, I got off light, > I never got abused by cops in scores of incidents. ANd I am not saying that it happens every day. But when it is ignored or covered up by other cops, it is acceptable to them. Guilt by association follows. > Once, after and interstate high speed pursuit, some Mass Staties kicked > the sh.t out of me when I was cuffed, but I was wise cracking them about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I took it like a man. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > My opinion is that the vast majority of cops are honest, or as honest as > you or I, and they don't abuse their power any more than anyone else in a > power position does. That's not a real meaningful statement. It has been said that absolute power corrupts absolutely. ". . . any more than anyone else in a power position does. . . " is hardly a high standard. > You wanna see a bunch of armed robbery, bunko-steering fakir/crooks, > study the Congress. They're doing you on a scale cops that speed on the > way to work can only dream about. They're not, personally, beating anyone up. > With the exception of one time, where, in my opinion, I got off light, I > never got abused by cops in scores of incidents. > > Once, after and interstate high speed pursuit, some Mass Staties kicked > the sh.t out of me when I was cuffed, but I was wise cracking them about > slow Ford cruisers. Not what I'd call justified. How do you suppose it would have turned out if you had been a slender woman? Lee >> My opinion is that the vast majority of cops are honest, or as honest as >> you or I, and they don't abuse their power any more than anyone else in a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > power corrupts absolutely. ". . . any more than anyone else in a power > position does. . . " is hardly a high standard. It is what it is. I noticed when I was a 17 year old grunt that the headquarters guys got better chow and births. The armorers had newer weapons. And the supply guys had all the gear they could use. Life hasn't changed much since then. >> You wanna see a bunch of armed robbery, bunko-steering fakir/crooks, >> study the Congress. They're doing you on a scale cops that speed on the >> way to work can only dream about. > > They're not, personally, beating anyone up. They're beating up the country. >> With the exception of one time, where, in my opinion, I got off light, I >> never got abused by cops in scores of incidents. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not what I'd call justified. I didn't say it was. I thought it was understandable, though. > How do you suppose it would have turned out if you had been a slender > woman? I support the Equal Rights Amendment. If she'd have shot her mouth off, ke sira. Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com > If she'd have shot her mouth off, ke sira. The first of all of the Bill of Rights is the right to free speech. Lee > > If she'd have shot her mouth off, ke sira. > > The first of all of the Bill of Rights is the right to free speech. And as anyone who has studied the Bill of Rights knows, free speech doesn't necessarily entail the right to "shoot your mouth off". >> If she'd have shot her mouth off, ke sira. > > The first of all of the Bill of Rights is the right to free speech. Oh, absolutely. The Staties didn't charge me a -dime- for the ass-kicking... :-) Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com >>> If she'd have shot her mouth off, ke sira. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The Staties didn't charge me a -dime- for the ass-kicking... :-) Yeah, they did. You, along with all the rest of us, paid the cops that did it. Lee > Once, after and interstate high speed pursuit, some Mass Staties kicked > the sh.t out of me when I was cuffed, but I was wise cracking them about > slow Ford cruisers. > So they tenderized me a bit. :-) > I took it like a man. No use scratchin' unless you got an itch. > The issue is that the police do not police their own. No, the issue is that the process for selecting police officers is no more perfect than the process for selecting any other professional. The point is that, in this case, and in occasionaly others, not only did the police not protect the citizen from crime, the police were responsible for the crime. The point is, and you know it's true, that as long as others, police or otherwise, can not defend citizens, the right and means for them to defend themselves must be preserved. > There was a time when the police could be (somewhat) trusted. Most still can be, but not all. > No more. The "blue line" allows bad officers to continue to be police > officers. If the police would get rid of the bad officers, and have some > professionalism in their ranks, the not only would these issues be few, > but > more importantly, the public would trust the police more. It's not good enough to get rid of police officers after they've proven their criminal nature. The problem is, there's often no way to separate the good from the bad until they have. > But they (the police) don't, and therefore, we (the public) don't. I know > some fine officers, who I respect and trust. I know many more > who neither respect nor trust. The sad fact is that there are more of the > latter than the former. I don't agree that there's more of the latter. I do think, however, that there's too many for anyone with an ounce of good sense, to believe that the police may be relied on to protect the citizens 100% of the time or that they, particularly ones like this, should be the only ones allowed to bear arms. Lee >>The issue is that the police do not police their own. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > otherwise, can not defend citizens, the right and means for them to defend > themselves must be preserved. I agree. However, until the police themselves refuse to let these thigs happen, either by ignoring them, or covering up the actions of their fellow police officers, these things will continue to happen more and more. Until police officers require their fellow police officers to perform to some standards of behavior, then police will not have the respect that they need to do their job effectively. >>There was a time when the police could be (somewhat) trusted. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > their criminal nature. The problem is, there's often no way to separate the > good from the bad until they have. But I repeat. Until the standards of behavior for police are upheld BY THE POLICE OFFICERS THEMSELVES, things will not change. Generally, these officers do not act alone. THey are with other police officers. >>But they (the police) don't, and therefore, we (the public) don't. I know >>some fine officers, who I respect and trust. I know many more [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they, particularly ones like this, should be the only ones allowed to bear > arms. I agree that the police should not be the only ones allowed to bear arms. > Lee Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 >> Look at the still pictures of the injuries to the women and then tell me >> one more time that she had it coming. > Myself, I was referring to the "chick getting stripped" tape. > The one you posted, I hope that dude has a good lawyer. I hope he doesn't. He needs some time on the inside. This point is not, and never has been, that every cop is bad all the time, or even that every cop is bad some of the time. The point, made by our founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is, no authoritative group can be counted on to have the best interest of the public in mind 100% of the time. John and Greg think otherwise. I thought you would agree. Lee >>> Look at the still pictures of the injuries to the women and then tell me >>> one more time that she had it coming. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > John and Greg think otherwise. I thought you would agree. Oh, I completely agree. I have faith in my government and I support my local sheriff. But I have what I deem a reasonable level of realistic expectations. And, as do you, an unusual level of self reliance. Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com > I have faith in my government and I support my local sheriff. Yeah, "faith" is probably the right term... A belief in something devoid of logic and reasoning... <snicker> SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. In article <pan.2008.02.25.02.24.11.531000@grumman581-usenet-2008- spambob-net>, grumman581-usenet-2008@spambob.net says... -On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:43:17 -0500, Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote: - -> I have faith in my government and I support my local sheriff. - -Yeah, "faith" is probably the right term... A belief in something devoid -of logic and reasoning... science: you need no faith, only your eyes. - -<snicker> - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > > Like I said, show me the whole tape. > > Reports are that the video was turned off. You'll note from the original > link I sent that one minute she's being wrestled to the ground, still > looking fine, and the next, she's on the ground in a pool of her own blood. > According to the department, it's standard procedure to turn the tape off. While it's possible that the video was turned off, it looks more like the officer was just standing in the way of the camera to me. More importantly, I can't even fathom a department policy that would allow the video to be turned off prior to the completion of the booking process, including putting the perp into the lockup facility. > While it's possible that the video was turned off, it looks more like the > officer was just standing in the way of the camera to me. More [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > putting > the perp into the lockup facility. I believe you are responding on the basis of a film introduced by someone else, probably of a completely different event. The statement, made by a supervisory person in the department, was that policy was for the cameras to be turned on during a drug and alcohol test and that, when the suspect declined to take the test, the camera was, by policy, turned off. If that's the case, it's interesting, to me, that the camera was turned back on at all. There's a lot to be answered and answered for. The only thing that can be said for certain is that the woman was severely beaten. In my personal opinion, there is no acceptable combination of circumstances that should have left her in that condition. Lee <Snip> I agree that we can't make many judgements without seeing the rest of the film. > The number, and gender, of officers removing her clothes > were -absolutely- and -completely- her choice. Either way, at least two deputies are going to find the next few months to be not especially pleasant. They may also be looking for new jobs. Breaking department policy isn't something that the department looks highly upon and, in cases where it could end up costing the department a lot of money, it isn't unliekly that the officers will end up being the scapegoats. I can see the press conference now. "The department policy is that only like-gendered personnel will be involved in strip searches. As such, and seeing as how deputies Jones and Smith were involved in the strip search of a non-like-gendered prisoner against department policy, the deputies in question have been released from the department." > The average county jail doesn't have 7 women working the night shift, > she was lucky there were two or three. I don't know how things might work in other parts of the country, but in my station, there would have been a female present the entire time (there appears to have been a female present nearly the entire time, if not the entire time, in this case). Also, in situations where we are concerned about the person hurting themselves or others, we strap them in "the chair". Once you're strapped in "the chair", you pose zero threat to anybody. The chair resembles, to some degree, a wheelchair with arm, leg, chest, and head straps. Of course, if the perp will be staying with us overnight, part of the booking process is to have the perp go into the holding cell and change into a jumpsuit. I'm not sure what happens if the perp refuses to change, because I've never seen that happen and I haven't read the department policies since it's not something that I expect will ever affect me.. I have seen the officers bring in a woman who was completely naked and refused to cover herself with the blanket that was offered or the jumpsuit. That much I witnessed first hand. She sat in the drunk tank with the jumpsuit on the floor until she had sobered up enough to realize what was going on and she got dressed. At least, that's what I heard since I had already gone home by that point. > In my professional opinion, they went out of their way to do their job, > protect themselves, and not hurt the prisoner. In my not so professional opinion, it's possible that's the case. It's also possible that they were somewhat overzealous in the process. I'd have to see the whole tape to say. > <Snip> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > money, it isn't unliekly that the officers will end up being the > scapegoats. I doubt it. If a prisoner is unruly, Sheriffs can use as much force as necessary to subdue them. I find it awfully peculiar that the tape was so particularly edited. Let's see the booking tape. > I can see the press conference now. "The department policy is that only > like-gendered personnel will be involved in strip searches. As such, and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > appears to have been a female present nearly the entire time, if not the > entire time, in this case). I thought there was two. > Also, in situations where we are concerned > about the person hurting themselves or others, we strap them in "the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > possible that they were somewhat overzealous in the process. I'd have to > see the whole tape to say. When a prisoner is stir searched, they take of their own clothes. If they refuse, it gets done for them. If they resist, it's done with whatever force is necessary. That's for the safety of the officers. In that scenario, the only reason the guys were there was because she required it. Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com <snip> > When a prisoner is stir searched, they take of their own clothes. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In that scenario, the only reason the guys were there was because she > required it. The one phrase that could really spell trouble for the male officers is "against department policy." Even if the strip search was warranted (I'm not claiming it wasn't) and even if the force applied was appropriate, the fact that it goes against the department's policy for them to be involved could turn out to be very ugly for the officers in question. > The one phrase that could really spell trouble for the male officers is > "against department policy." Even if the strip search was warranted (I'm > not claiming it wasn't) and even if the force applied was appropriate, the > fact that it goes against the department's policy for them to be involved > could turn out to be very ugly for the officers in question. I agree, it *could* cause them some problem BUT, if you look at most agency SOP's, there is a phrase, "these SOP's are meant as guidelines. Circumstances may require other actions be taken"....or something to that effect. If the officers can articulate WHY there were male officers handling the female prisoner, then they are probably OK. >>Here's a link to the video. Please note that the suspect was not obviously >>injured at the beginning and that, in the end, she's laying on the floor in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Dont forget this one: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWF_9b8ZJNw Selectively edited video from a news source which of course needs to be concerned with ratings among its competition. (More viewers=More Ad$$) A drivers license is NOT your personal property. At least in Virginia, it is the property of the state. She kept it as a memento of her dead sister. The officer had a DUTY to return it to the state. When asked for her ID, she presented her dead sisters ID. I have seen plenty of prisoners that INTENTIONALLY bang their heads on the wall or the barrier in a police vehicle in order to injure themselves. Maybe gain pity. More likely to falsley claim excessive force. When you restrain them to keep them from doing that, then you run the risk of positional asphyxia. In the jail cell, she was restrained by multiple officers, two of which were male. Lets say they didn't strip search her. She pulls out a hidden weapon and kills herself. Who's fault is it? Yes there have been MANY cases of females concealing deadly weapons on their body. Lee posted his link to ONE officer dealing with a drunk bitch and she winds up on the floor bleeding. (Another selectively edit video). John posted a video of multiple officers trying to restrain a violent person to insure she had no weapons on her. Which is it? How many officers is correct? We are seeing selectively edited video which presents only ONE side. Maybe the officers are in the wrong. If so, let the investigations and courts decide. I am not saying the officers in these videos are correct. But I am not saying they did anything wrong. I am saying, the videos were obviously edited to make people come to a specific conclusion. Just like the infamous Rodney King video. > Selectively edited video from a news source which of course needs to be > concerned with ratings among its competition. According to the news reports, which quoted depatment officials, the video was turned off by policy. Indications are that it's not an edited video. Take a look at the stills I referenced and tell me whether you think they are of a women that deliberately hit her head or one that beaten to a pulp. > Lee posted his link to ONE officer dealing with a drunk bitch and she > winds up on the floor bleeding. (Another selectively edit video). I agree. The problem is, it seems to be the police department that did the editing. > We are seeing selectively edited video which presents only ONE side. Maybe > the officers are in the wrong. If so, let the investigations and courts > decide. The responsible officer has been fired and there are two other legal actions currently going on against him. Lee > The responsible officer has been fired and there are two other legal actions > currently going on against him. > > Lee If the officer has been fired, apparently an internal investigation revealed wrongdoing of some sort. He may have been fired over this incident, may have been fired over something totally unrelated. I don't know where this incident took place, but around here, you can't just fire an officer on a whim (deputy sheriffs are a different story). Your message header reads "These are the people we should trust to protect us". Is it safe to assume that was meant as sarcasm? If so, it would appear the system worked. That officer is no longer trusted to protect anyone other than himself. The system purged him and he is no longer entrusted with public safety duties. The officer will now have to justify his actions in court. > Your message header reads "These are the people we should trust to > protect us". Is it safe to assume that was meant as sarcasm? If so, it > would appear the system worked. That officer is no longer trusted to > protect anyone other than himself. The system purged him and he is no > longer entrusted with public safety duties. The officer will now have > to justify his actions in court. Apparently Lee would rather trust those who are not sworn to uphold the peace, as he apparently shelters some perverse animosity toward our dedicated men and women in uniform. Me, I'm with Popeye. Next to him, I've probably been on the wrong side of the law more than most here. Only during one incident was I ever threatened with physical harm and I would totally have deserved it since I continued trying to kick out the windows of his cruiser even after he had "hog tied" me in the back. On the other hand, every time I've showered them with yessirs and nosirs, I've been accorded equal respect. You reap what you sow. Of course that speaks from the perspective of a clean-cut white boy. Minorities and those who appear less reputable might fare differently, but I'm pretty sure that unless the crime itself is so heinous that no one would care if the arrested suspect gets dinged up a bit on the way to the holding cell, even the brutalized minorities and white scum brought it upon themselves in some way. After all, if Rodney King had simply pulled over and placed his hands on the steering wheel, then continued to follow every other order of the arresting officers with a modicum of civility, undoubtedly he would have made it through the process completely unharmed. The reason why I trust the officers more than the average man on the street is because at least the officers have been vetted, trained, and are "insured" by the wealth of the government they work for. If they can still screw up, how can you possibly trust the average man on the street? At least when the cops screw up, you can sue the crap out of them. When your neighbor goes on a rampage and shoots up the street then kills himself, who do you look to for redress? >>Your message header reads "These are the people we should trust to >>protect us". Is it safe to assume that was meant as sarcasm? If so, it [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > them. When your neighbor goes on a rampage and shoots up the street > then kills himself, who do you look to for redress? And here we find the real issue. Who can be sued? One would expect that from an attorney. THe rest is just window dressing, isn't it? Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 On Feb 24, 11:33 am, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote: > > The reason why I trust the officers more than the average man on the > > street is because at least the officers have been vetted, trained, and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > THe rest is just window dressing, isn't it? I listed three issues: (1) vetting, (2) training, and (3) financial responsibility. It's the same with driving a car, another lethal weapon. The state requires, or at least mine does, adequate insurance in case I screw up. If someone drives their car into me when it's not my fault, you can bet I'd want financial redress if I'm injured. If someone shoots me when it's not my fault, you can bet I'd want financial redress if I'm injured. I don't have to sue. If the city or auto insurer wants to voluntarily write me a check, fine. But if they don't want to make good on causing my injuries, why wouldn't I get a lawyer to right that wrong? > Who can be sued? How much do you sue for to put her fact back together? How much do you sue for to compensate for the pain and suffering this lady experienced at the hands of those that were supposed to protect her? Are people who would do this, whether they are apprehended and punished later or not, weather the law suit cleans out the country coffers or not, the kind of people that anybody here, even one person, think are the only people that should have the means to use deadly force? Lee > > Who can be sued? > How much do you sue for to put her face back together? How much do you sue > for to compensate for the pain and suffering this lady experienced at the > hands of those that were supposed to protect her? > Are people who would do this, whether they are apprehended and punished > later or not, weather the law suit cleans out the country coffers or not, > the kind of people that anybody here, even one person, think are the only > people that should have the means to use deadly force? *ANYONE* who would beat a small woman like that is a criminal, and guilty of criminal acts at best, complete loss of control at worst. You sweep 'em, slap 'em to the deck, cuff and stuff, and then close the friggin door till they calm down. Sovereignty isn't just for nations; it is wholly based and built on the foundation of personal sovereignty. On Feb 24, 10:34 am, nitespark <nitesp...@cox.net> wrote: > Your message header reads "These are the people we should trust to > protect us". Is it safe to assume that was meant as sarcasm? If so, it > would appear the system worked. That officer is no longer trusted to > protect anyone other than himself. The system purged him and he is no > longer entrusted with public safety duties. The officer will now have > to justify his actions in court. Apparently Lee would rather trust those who are not sworn to uphold the peace, as he apparently shelters some perverse animosity toward our dedicated men and women in uniform. Me, I'm with Popeye. Next to him, I've probably been on the wrong side of the law more than most here. Only during one incident was I ever threatened with physical harm and I would totally have deserved it since I continued trying to kick out the windows of his cruiser even after he had "hog tied" me in the back. On the other hand, every time I've showered them with yessirs and nosirs, I've been accorded equal respect. You reap what you sow. Of course that speaks from the perspective of a clean-cut white boy. Minorities and those who appear less reputable might fare differently, but I'm pretty sure that unless the crime itself is so heinous that no one would care if the arrested suspect gets dinged up a bit on the way to the holding cell, even the brutalized minorities and white scum brought it upon themselves in some way. After all, if Rodney King had simply pulled over and placed his hands on the steering wheel, then continued to follow every other order of the arresting officers with a modicum of civility, undoubtedly he would have made it through the process completely unharmed. Everybody should remember that Rodney had a passenger that didn't even get scuffed. The reason why I trust the officers more than the average man on the street is because at least the officers have been vetted, trained, and are "insured" by the wealth of the government they work for. If they can still screw up, how can you possibly trust the average man on the street? At least when the cops screw up, you can sue the crap out of them. When your neighbor goes on a rampage and shoots up the street then kills himself, who do you look to for redress? Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com >>Your message header reads "These are the people we should trust to >>protect us". Is it safe to assume that was meant as sarcasm? If so, it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the peace, as he apparently shelters some perverse animosity toward > our dedicated men and women in uniform. After 28 years with my department plus 4 years military law enforcement, I think I can speak with a bit of knowledge and experience. My rules for use of force are quite simple- (1) Use the minimum force necessary to accomplish the task (2) The suspect determines the level of force necessary. The officer responds with one step above the suspect. (3) When the resistance stops, the force stops. As fate would have it, the corresponds with the Use of Force policy of most departments. FWIW, I am back from retirement working part time. Retained my rank. > Me, I'm with Popeye. Next to him, I've probably been on the wrong > side of the law more than most here. Only during one incident was I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > time I've showered them with yessirs and nosirs, I've been accorded > equal respect. You reap what you sow. Hmmmmm imagine that. > Of course that speaks from the perspective of a clean-cut white boy. To me, race or ethnicity have nothing to do with it. I have had blacks treat me with utmost respect and whites I have had to fight.....and vice versa. Its not the skin color.....its the person and their actions. > them. When your neighbor goes on a rampage and shoots up the street > then kills himself, who do you look to for redress? The cops. Because they should have_________________________. > FWIW, I am back from retirement working part time. Retained my rank. <klink> Barkeep, a round for the house. >>FWIW, I am back from retirement working part time. Retained my rank. > > <klink> > > Barkeep, a round for the house. Thanks.....nice to be back in the saddle. However, it was planned from before I retired. >> FWIW, I am back from retirement working part time. Retained my rank. > > <klink> > > Barkeep, a round for the house. Hear, hear! Signature-- A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com > <klink> > > Barkeep, a round for the house. Did you get a job ? > > <klink> > > Barkeep, a round for the house. > Did you get a job ? First off, f.ck you. I don't answer to anonymous trolls. I been working since I was 13, you? In article <f4f01b53-2caf-49cf-8a51-201235ba6435 @i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, mossman@qnet.com says... -On Feb 24, 10:34 am, nitespark <nitesp...@cox.net> wrote: - -> Your message header reads "These are the people we should trust to -> protect us". Is it safe to assume that was meant as sarcasm? If so, it -> would appear the system worked. That officer is no longer trusted to -> protect anyone other than himself. The system purged him and he is no -> longer entrusted with public safety duties. The officer will now have -> to justify his actions in court. - -Apparently Lee would rather trust those who are not sworn to uphold -the peace, as he apparently shelters some perverse animosity toward -our dedicated men and women in uniform. - -Me, I'm with Popeye. Next to him, I've probably been on the wrong -side of the law more than most here. Only during one incident was I -ever threatened with physical harm and I would totally have deserved -it since I continued trying to kick out the windows of his cruiser -even after he had "hog tied" me in the back. On the other hand, every -time I've showered them with yessirs and nosirs, I've been accorded -equal respect. You reap what you sow. - -Of course that speaks from the perspective of a clean-cut white boy. -Minorities and those who appear less reputable might fare differently, -but I'm pretty sure that unless the crime itself is so heinous that no -one would care if the arrested suspect gets dinged up a bit on the way -to the holding cell, even the brutalized minorities and white scum -brought it upon themselves in some way. After all, if Rodney King had -simply pulled over and placed his hands on the steering wheel, then -continued to follow every other order of the arresting officers with a -modicum of civility, undoubtedly he would have made it through the -process completely unharmed. - -The reason why I trust the officers more than the average man on the -street is because at least the officers have been vetted, trained, and -are "insured" by the wealth of the government they work for. except that they are exempt from liability during official duties. SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > Your message header reads "These are the people we should trust to protect > us". Is it safe to assume that was meant as sarcasm? If so, it would > appear the system worked. That officer is no longer trusted to protect > anyone other than himself. The system purged him and he is no longer > entrusted with public safety duties. The officer will now have to justify > his actions in court. It's same to assume. These are the people that John and Greg think should be the only ones trusted with deadly force. As for the system working, ask the lady who was beat to a pulp what she thinks of how the system worked to protect her from criminal abuse. Lee >>Your message header reads "These are the people we should trust to protect >>us". Is it safe to assume that was meant as sarcasm? If so, it would [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Lee So how do you propose to change the system so something like that cannot happen? > So how do you propose to change the system so something like that cannot > happen? Lee has already shown his firm support for shooting cops that falsely arrest people. Apparently he would extend that to the police brutality situations as well. The only way to equalize the disparity of force between arresting officer and suspect would be to arm the suspect. That way, if the cop gets out of hand with the beating, the suspect can start shooting at whim. Furthermore, arming all prisoners would stop a lot of the brutality perpetuated by prison guards. If it makes sense to Lee, it makes sense to me. > So how do you propose to change the system so something like that cannot > happen? That's a much bigger question. My point relates to the position, of some, that nobody but the police and military need to have access to weapons. dazed and confuzzed certainly has part of the answer. To solve the problem of excessive use of force, brutality, and other crimes by authorities, it is necessary for those authorities, themselves, to support the effort. Whether it's Congress, the military, or any of the various levels of government or police, that's not happening consistently enough. Another part of the answer is for the people of this country to insist that these things stop and that those guilty of abuse are appropriately punished. My personal opinion is that, with authority comes responsibility and, because of that, the standard for those in authority, including the police, should be higher than for everyone else, as should the punishment. If I'm expected to abide by traffic laws, and am ticketed and fined for violating them, I think it's reasonable to expect the police to set an example of good driving. That means no more speeding, parking in areas where others are not allowed, and no more turning on lights, etc. to run a traffic light except when actually necessary to perform their duties. While I have a strong tendency to give the officer the benefit of the doubt, you and I both know that the majority of officers take advantage of the fact that other officers are not likely to ticket them for anything less than the most egregious violations. It is illegal for me to take almost anything, certainly including meals, from those I serve. Why isn't it illegal for police officers to take free meals from those they serve? Do you actually think it's nothing more than thanks for doing their job? Do you actually think that those that provide deep discounts or outright free goods or services to the police don't expect to be treated better because they did? Why is it OK for a police officer working a detail, when he or she is working directly for a specific individual or group, to use a police car, police authority, or wear a police uniform? Why is it OK for them to hook to a traffic control device specifically to favor an organization that hires them to provide preference to those that belong to the organization? The long term answer to your question is for everyone, including the police themselves, to reject preferential treatment of people in authority and to insist that those that abuse their positions, no matter how small the abuse, suffer the safe consequences , or more, than any other citizens would. I'm not going to hold my breath. Lee > If I'm expected to abide by traffic laws, and am ticketed and fined for > violating them, I think it's reasonable to expect the police to set an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > officers are not likely to ticket them for anything less than the most > egregious violations. Taking it further, I would expect someone in the high-ranks of federal law enforcement not to be posting racist anti-Muslim tracts, defending racist usage of the word "jew", and perpetuating urban legends known to be false about current candidates for U.S. President. > It is illegal for me to take almost anything, certainly including meals, > from those I serve. Why isn't it illegal for police officers to take free > meals from those they serve? Do you actually think it's nothing more than > thanks for doing their job? Do you actually think that those that provide > deep discounts or outright free goods or services to the police don't expect > to be treated better because they did? It probably is illegal for them to take free meals. But some people insist on providing courtesies to police, not because they expect anything, but because unlike you they actually respect those who put on the uniform and risk their lives to keep the rest of us safe. Others give freebies so they can keep the cops around since the risk of armed robbery goes way down while there are cops eating donuts in your establishment. I'm just curious why you hate cops so much that you whine about them as much as you whine about Mexicans or Jews? > Why is it OK for a police officer working a detail, when he or she is > working directly for a specific individual or group, to use a police car, > police authority, or wear a police uniform? Why is it OK for them to hook > to a traffic control device specifically to favor an organization that hires > them to provide preference to those that belong to the organization? Because they have a lot of power and we respect that instead of abusing that power completely, they only do it it bits and pieces like running the occasional red light. BFD. Why does it bug you so much that you need to rant about it? Some people are more privileged than others. I'm more jealous of the guy in the limo who has a driver to drive him around while he sleeps in traffic than the cop who's speeding across town to make a court appointment. BFD. > The long term answer to your question is for everyone, including the police > themselves, to reject preferential treatment of people in authority and to > insist that those that abuse their positions, no matter how small the abuse, > suffer the safe consequences , or more, than any other citizens would. > > I'm not going to hold my breath. Of course not. It's impossible to whine while holding your breath. Everyone knows that. > It is illegal for me to take almost anything, certainly including meals, > from those I serve. Why isn't it illegal for police officers to take free > meals from those they serve? Do you actually think it's nothing more than > thanks for doing their job? Do you actually think that those that provide > deep discounts or outright free goods or services to the police don't > expect to be treated better because they did? We've had cases around here where officers would wear their uniform even on their days off so that they could get free meals from restaurants... Some would even bring their families into the restaurant with them... Most of the restaurant owners offer it because they figure that they're getting cheap police protection in the process... They figure that it's cheaper than actually hiring an offduty officer as a guard... For some reason, most crooks don't choose to rob a store if they see an officer's car parked in front of the store... <snicker> SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. : > It is illegal for me to take almost anything, certainly including meals, : > from those I serve. Why isn't it illegal for police officers to take free [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : most crooks don't choose to rob a store if they see an officer's car : parked in front of the store... <snicker> A dope who performed an armed robbery on me (he got a dripolator for his troubles, no cash at all) tried the guy next door 3 days later, some cops were eating lunch 40 yards up the road while sitting in their landcruiser, they fixed him good. The prep's jaw was broken and protruding from his cheek after the bulbar got him. SignatureBrad Leyden 6° 43.5816' S 146° 59.3097' E WGS84 To mail spam is really hot but please reply to thread so all may benefit (or laugh at my mistakes) >> It is illegal for me to take almost anything, certainly including meals, >> from those I serve. Why isn't it illegal for police officers to take free [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > most crooks don't choose to rob a store if they see an officer's car > parked in front of the store... <snicker> In other circles, that would be called a bribe. In any circle, it's expectation of benefit in return for the free food. Lee >>So how do you propose to change the system so something like that cannot >>happen? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > because of that, the standard for those in authority, including the police, > should be higher than for everyone else, as should the punishment. Lee, I don't have any idea how it is around your area, but I have seen police corruption and have seen police corruption prosecuted and those involved held accountable. I don't know how much more you want. > If I'm expected to abide by traffic laws, and am ticketed and fined for > violating them, I think it's reasonable to expect the police to set an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > officers are not likely to ticket them for anything less than the most > egregious violations. I will go so far as to say it probably has happened. I won't go so far as to call it a "majority". Since this troubles you, have you filed a complaint with the department? Recently a local officer, off duty, took his cruiser out of town, unauthorized and ended up totalling it and was arrested for DUI. The officer was suspended WITHOUT pay and I suspect he should be looking for a new career field. It was not my department so I don't know the details. In all liklihood, he will not only lose his job but his career as well as a DUI conviction. How much more accountability can you ask for? > It is illegal for me to take almost anything, certainly including meals, > from those I serve. Why isn't it illegal for police officers to take free > meals from those they serve? Do you actually think it's nothing more than > thanks for doing their job? Do you actually think that those that provide > deep discounts or outright free goods or services to the police don't expect > to be treated better because they did? I don't know of any specific laws about "free meals" and gratuities as such. Obviously if there is an articulated benefit such as "If you can fix this ticket, all your meals here are free", is another matter. That is clearly bribery, and is wrong, and is against the law. For the record, I DO NOT accept free or reduced prices at places. I ALWAYS pay full price and have even asked the clerk to re-ring the purchase. This has lead to more than one annoyed look from the clerk but I am OK with that. However, the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics and Conduct prohibit such conduct by a law enforcement officer. Additionally my department's SOP prohibits it. > Why is it OK for a police officer working a detail, when he or she is > working directly for a specific individual or group, to use a police car, > police authority, or wear a police uniform? Why is it OK for them to hook > to a traffic control device specifically to favor an organization that hires > them to provide preference to those that belong to the organization? In that case, I assume you are talking about an officer working a traffic intersection for a church, or perhaps a school or a civic event to let traffic out. The officer is not there for preference. He/she is there to provide an orderly and hopefully safe means for people leaving an event to exit a facility. Often times, there are so many events that require traffic control, there is no way a department can cover the calls for service and provide several hours of traffic control for an event. So the event hires off duty officers. The officer is providing a law enforcement presence. The officer has to deal with a large amount of traffic that temporarily overwhelms the handling capacity of the streets and roads so that is strictly a judgement call on the officer's part. This sounds kinda nit picky to me. > The long term answer to your question is for everyone, including the police > themselves, to reject preferential treatment of people in authority and to > insist that those that abuse their positions, no matter how small the abuse, > suffer the safe consequences , or more, than any other citizens would. Since returning to my agency part time, my primary job is Internal Affairs investigations. We are not inundated with complaints but complaints in law enforcement are inevitable. > I'm not going to hold my breath. Run for City Council or County Supervisor or whatever the governing body is in your area. Have you ever done a ride-along with the local LE agency? > Lee, I don't have any idea how it is around your area, but I have seen > police corruption and have seen police corruption prosecuted and those > involved held accountable. I don't know how much more you want. The statement was not that it never happened, but that it was not consistent enough. If you've ever seen an officer put on leave with or without pay while a suspect in a crime that someone else would be jailed for, you know it's true. What I want is a stop to the abuse. What I'd settle for is consistent effort to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. > I will go so far as to say it probably has happened. I won't go so far as > to call it a "majority". Then you're only fooling yourself. Five of my best friends are police officers. One's a Major, one's a captain, one's a sargeant and two are patrolmen. Every one of them routinely drives over the speed limit. That's 100% of the sample. I think I'm pretty safe in saying it's a majority. If you don't routinly drive in excess of the speed limit, it's still a majority. If you do, it's still 100%. > Since this troubles you, have you filed a complaint with the department? > Recently a local officer, off duty, took his cruiser out of town, > unauthorized and ended up totalling it and was arrested for DUI. The > officer was suspended WITHOUT pay and I > suspect he should be looking for a new career field. Had a non police citizen done the same thing, he would have be in jail. Somehow, suspended without pay doesn't sound like "held to a higher standard." > I don't know of any specific laws about "free meals" and gratuities as > such. Pretty tellling statement in itself, don't you think? > For the record, I DO NOT accept free or reduced prices at places. I > ALWAYS pay full price and have even asked the clerk to re-ring the > purchase. This has lead to more than one annoyed look from the clerk > but I am OK with that. I have never had reason to criticize your moral compass. I still don't. Do you get fleet prices on your car tires? >> Why is it OK for a police officer working a detail, when he or she is >> working directly for a specific individual or group, to use a police car, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> hires them to provide preference to those that belong to the >> organization? > In that case, I assume you are talking about an officer working a traffic > intersection for a church, or perhaps a school or a civic event to let [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > service and provide several hours of traffic control for an event. So the > event hires off duty officers. You were doing fine until you got to this one. As a member of the community, I pay the officer to provide traffic control as necessary for the safety of the people. That's their job. I have no problem with someone hiring an off duty officer. I have a great deal of problem with somebody hiring one that, during his outside employment, uses police equipment, uniform and authority to work for someone other than the public as a whole. If you don't think the paying entity is getting more police service in return for their detail dollars, you need to think again. > The officer is providing a law enforcement presence. Is he working as a police officer, or is he working as a security guard? If the former, then he's being bribed. If the latter, then he should not be in a police car or wearing a police uniform. > The officer has to deal with a large amount of traffic that temporarily > overwhelms the handling capacity of the streets and roads so that is > strictly a judgement call on the officer's part. It's strictly a call on the security guard's part and it's no surprise that the call always favors the entity paying for the detail. > This sounds kinda nit picky to me. Perhaps it's your perspective. How does it sound if, in stead of a church, it's the good old boy paying off duty police to provide security for his party while he brings prostitutes in to entertain his political buddies? > Since returning to my agency part time, my primary job is Internal Affairs > investigations. We are not inundated with complaints but complaints in > law enforcement are inevitable. You've taken a tough job. While I strongly favor strict enforcement and a higher standard for those in power, I also strongly favor fair treatment under the law. The greater the authority available to the accused, the harder it is to separate the bad from the good. I wish you luck in your endeavor and applaud you for trying. As for complaints being few, but inevitable, I'm sure that's a good thing, but understand that I'm not addressing complaints from outside. I'm addressing monitoring from inside. The first level required to change is the organization's own monitoring of employee performance. The public can't do the job. On that subject, I really hate all the police shows on TV these days. Rarely do I see one that does not include multiple incidents where it appears that excessive force is being applied. It's TV, and meant to have an impact, so there's no certainty that the force is excessive in every case, but it is certain that what is shown appears that way. I'm very concerned with the message this sends to the public, that such levels of violence are the norm, are right and just. > Run for City Council or County Supervisor or whatever the governing body > is in your area. I have a full time job. > Have you ever done a ride-along with the local LE agency? Yes, but most of my opportunities were with a traffic homicide detective. By the time we got there, the suspect was already either dead or under control. I can't speak to what was done to a live suspect. I can say that I've never seen excessive force used against a dead one. Lee >>Lee, I don't have any idea how it is around your area, but I have seen >>police corruption and have seen police corruption prosecuted and those [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it's true. What I want is a stop to the abuse. What I'd settle for is > consistent effort to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Again, I have seen it around here. It is NOT tolerated. It is investigated and prosecuted. Just recently, a Sheriffs Dept south of me was the subject of a MAJOR federal investigation. I think something like TWENTY people were convicted including the sheriff. I have no sympathy for him or any of the people involved. I only wish the sheriff had gotten more time (he got 8 months). He violated the public trust. He was in a position to stop the corruption before the investigation and didn't. The government argued for more time. It was the court that decided the punishment. No law enforcement agency had anything to do with that. >>I will go so far as to say it probably has happened. I won't go so far as >>to call it a "majority". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you don't routinly drive in excess of the speed limit, it's still a > majority. If you do, it's still 100%. A majority of whom you know. For that matter, I am willing to bet YOU drive over the speed limit at times. I know I do. Perhaps 2-3 mph, but still over the speed limit. Everyone does at some point in time. >>Since this troubles you, have you filed a complaint with the department? >>Recently a local officer, off duty, took his cruiser out of town, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Somehow, suspended without pay doesn't sound like "held to a higher > standard." What makes you think this officer did not go to jail? He was treated no differently than any other person who wrecked a car while DUI. He was arrested, held til sober, posted a bond and will appear in court. Of course there is a high liklihood he will be fired. How was this person treated differently? >>I don't know of any specific laws about "free meals" and gratuities as >>such. > > Pretty tellling statement in itself, don't you think? Laws and SOP's are two different critters. SOP's simply the agency "policing itself", just as you propose. Additionally, my agency is Accredited. This means that not only do we have standards of performance and conduct, we must document we adhere to them. We are accredited every four years and just passed re-accreditation last year. >>For the record, I DO NOT accept free or reduced prices at places. I >>ALWAYS pay full price and have even asked the clerk to re-ring the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I have never had reason to criticize your moral compass. I still don't. Do > you get fleet prices on your car tires? Only tires I buy are for my own vehicles and I pay what everyone else pays from the tire store. Our vehicle maintenance garage buys the tires for our fleet and I have no idea what they pay for them. >>In that case, I assume you are talking about an officer working a traffic >>intersection for a church, or perhaps a school or a civic event to let [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If you don't think the paying entity is getting more police service in > return for their detail dollars, you need to think again. Express your concerns to the Chief or Sheriff. Write a letter to the editor. Complain to the Governing council of your city or county. >>The officer is providing a law enforcement presence. > > Is he working as a police officer, or is he working as a security guard? If > the former, then he's being bribed. If the latter, then he should not be in > a police car or wearing a police uniform. Have to disagree with this. It is common practice. I don't how it is any kind of bribery or misconduct in any way. >>This sounds kinda nit picky to me. > > Perhaps it's your perspective. How does it sound if, in stead of a church, > it's the good old boy paying off duty police to provide security for his > party while he brings prostitutes in to entertain his political buddies? My agency has certain standards for off duty employment. Prostitution is illegal in Virginia and arrests would be appropriate. Any off duty employement by members of my agency must be approved by the Chief of Police first. >>Since returning to my agency part time, my primary job is Internal Affairs >>investigations. We are not inundated with complaints but complaints in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > harder it is to separate the bad from the good. I wish you luck in your > endeavor and applaud you for trying. Thanks. We have a good, competent and professional department. There is a highly selective hiring process which weeds most of the undesireables. > As for complaints being few, but inevitable, I'm sure that's a good thing, > but understand that I'm not addressing complaints from outside. I'm > addressing monitoring from inside. The first level required to change is the > organization's own monitoring of employee performance. The public can't do > the job. When I first started doing IA's I handled some that were internally generated. Took me weeks to complete. > On that subject, I really hate all the police shows on TV these days. Rarely > do I see one that does not include multiple incidents where it appears that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > message this sends to the public, that such levels of violence are the norm, > are right and just. I don't like them much either. These shows show the high action, adrenaline scenes for ratings. Higher the ratings, the more advertising $$$. >>Run for City Council or County Supervisor or whatever the governing body >>is in your area. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > control. I can't speak to what was done to a live suspect. I can say that > I've never seen excessive force used against a dead one. Some departments (my does) offer a Citizens Police academy. Gives citizens an opportunity to interact with our officers on a closer basis than otherwise might be expected and in a venue that is neutral. They get a close up view of our activities. We have had Town Council people, business people, news media, and people from all walks of life participate. The most recurring comment I hear at the end of these academies are "I had no idea what police have to deal with". > > The statement was not that it never happened, but that it was not consistent > > enough. If you've ever seen an officer put on leave with or without pay [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > decided the punishment. No law enforcement agency had anything to do > with that. And because he violated the public trust, hopefully he got more than the average sentence. While police may get away with a bit more than the average citizen by virtue of who they know, the downside is that when they do get punished for something, they're often given a harsher sentence (of course that's probably served in some sort of protective unit, but jail is still jail). It balances out. > > Then you're only fooling yourself. Five of my best friend |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message