• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Man who Videotapes Police Could Get 16 Years in Prison

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Similarly, if you are ordered to stop videoing you should realize that failure to do so constitutes disobeying an order from a peace officer (in some states) and thus is reason to be arrested for that violation of disobedience.
So even if it's legal to videotape them, & the cop has no legal right to stop us, then we're still legally obligated to comply with an illegal order?
That would seem to be a recipe for a broad police power to commit crimes & destroy evidence.....& also ripe for mixed results in the courts.
Having hired cops & dealt with them before, I find many of them to be bigoted & callous bullies who aren't to be trusted with such power.

Be careful in Indiana....cops may enter illegally if they want. You have no right to resist.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
Of course, you do have the right to file a complaint with another cop. I'm sure it will be vigorously investigated.
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
How many cops do you know of that break the law "all the time"?
The pigs where I live had multiple departments under invistigation within a close time of each other, including the entire narcotics unit, and one cop who got off free of charge with a marijuana charge. And in Indianapolis, a drunk pig hit and killed another driver, and his superior and peers worked together to get him off the charge, including rigging his drug test. And there are many drug charges spanning many years in which these charges where made on faulty drug test results.
I don't personally know any cops, but I know one guy who was slammed face first into his car for objected to a drug search, that they felt was warranted because "the dog smelled something." However there were not any drugs in his car.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Similarly, if you are ordered to stop videoing you should realize that failure to do so constitutes disobeying an order from a peace officer (in some states) and thus is reason to be arrested for that violation of disobedience.

As I said in my first post in this thread, the best thing for everyone would be more education on what peace officers can and cannot do.
No, the so-called law enforcement officers (there is nothing peaceful about most of them) need to learn what they can and cannot do. Legally, I can look one dead in the eyes and shout "**** THE POLICE!" and legally they cannot do anything about it, but they will.
Being told not to record police action is a sign of extreme corruption. They are public servants, sworn to protect and uphold the law, and when operating within the public we have every right to record all the audio and visuals of them we want.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The pigs where I live had multiple departments under invistigation within a close time of each other, including the entire narcotics unit, and one cop who got off free of charge with a marijuana charge. And in Indianapolis, a drunk pig hit and killed another driver, and his superior and peers worked together to get him off the charge, including rigging his drug test. And there are many drug charges spanning many years in which these charges where made on faulty drug test results.
I don't personally know any cops, but I know one guy who was slammed face first into his car for objected to a drug search, that they felt was warranted because "the dog smelled something." However there were not any drugs in his car.
"The dog smelled something" is the do-as-we-please-&-to-hell-with-the-law card.
As I've said before, I once hired a deputy sheriff as a maintenance worker. He told me about how abusive & violent some of his fellow deputies were,
& how even he thought they went to far. But still, he said he really enjoyed dispensing on the spot "justice". He told me how as a youngster he was
fat & bullied. Now he's fat & bullying. He regularly drove drunk, & put his deputy hat on his dash so he'd get a free pass. He beat up his girlfriend &
threatened her family. I fired him for threatening to beat up tenants & co-workers.....oh, & blowing up their cars. His department was uninterested
in my "reference".
Be careful around cops. You might never know if he's some bully who wants to thump you & frame you.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
There is an earlier remark (made last year) the referred to how dumb some cops are. While some may be a bit slow, most are probably brighter than the average person. An example of the former is a guy I went to high school with who barely graduated after having to take night school courses. In the army he had to go through his MOS training twice in order to pass. He's now one of those strict By-The-Book cops because he's unable to think for himself. *shudder*
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
So even if it's legal to videotape them, & the cop has no legal right to stop us, then we're still legally obligated to comply with an illegal order?
1. A legal order from a peace officer is determinant upon whether or not he feels (and presumably can demonstrate) that your compliance with the order will not hinder or will at the very least assist him in the performance of his duties.

2. Whether or not a cop's order to a civilian is legal is for a court to decide. As the law (keep in mind that these laws are mostly state dependent) is, he can order you to do something and you have to. If you choose not to, he is allowed to use force to make you do so. Whether what he's ordering you to do is legal or not is something that is determined later in a court of law.

That would seem to be a recipe for a broad police power to commit crimes & destroy evidence.....& also ripe for mixed results in the courts.
Having hired cops & dealt with them before, I find many of them to be bigoted & callous bullies who aren't to be trusted with such power.
It is a lot of power and it can and is used for police corruption. Which is why education, both character education and education on what is and isn't legal, is important.


I'm sorry your experiences with cops have been negative. My personal experience has been the opposite.

I've found that the vast majority of cops are no different than any average member of society. Granted, in my point of view this is pathetic because I think someone who is given that extra power should be required (before receiving it) to have excellent character.


The pigs where I live had multiple departments under invistigation within a close time of each other, including the entire narcotics unit, and one cop who got off free of charge with a marijuana charge. And in Indianapolis, a drunk pig hit and killed another driver, and his superior and peers worked together to get him off the charge, including rigging his drug test. And there are many drug charges spanning many years in which these charges where made on faulty drug test results.
I don't personally know any cops, but I know one guy who was slammed face first into his car for objected to a drug search, that they felt was warranted because "the dog smelled something." However there were not any drugs in his car.
I''m sorry to hear that. But keep in mind that for all the bad cops who get bad press and make the rest of law enforcement look bad, there are plenty of good ones who don't do that.

In fact, most are absolutely disgusted by a corrupt cop. For many in the law enforcement world there is nothing worse.



No, the so-called law enforcement officers (there is nothing peaceful about most of them) need to learn what they can and cannot do. Legally, I can look one dead in the eyes and shout "**** THE POLICE!" and legally they cannot do anything about it, but they will.


It depends on where you are. In certain places in California is it illegal to shout obscenities in public.

Besides, you can legally shout "F*&^ the police"and a cop can legally (again, it depends on the State because these things are largely state dependent) come and talk to you about it, and even detain you for it during the course of his/her investigation of your behavior.

If you disagree with that, then work to change the law. Don't blame the cop.

Being told not to record police action is a sign of extreme corruption. They are public servants, sworn to protect and uphold the law, and when operating within the public we have every right to record all the audio and visuals of them we want.

I disagree with that. I don't disagree with video or recording, but I disagree with the conception that there is some sort of right to do so.

Depending on what is going on, your videoing could negatively impact the situation and place either yourself, the suspects, or the officers in danger.

Case in point, a classmate of mine was working one night and they received a call to a party that was going out of control (people were throwing beer bottles at the windows of the neighbors who'd called). The location was one where warrants had been served and weapons had been discovered. It was in the middle of an area that was known for gang violence. The neighbors who called said that they thought someone may have been armed due to threats being shouted out from partygoers.

My classmate and his partner rolled up to the scene and saw a young man with a black object in his hand that he was pointing at them. Given the distance, poor lighting, and the time of night, they ordered him to drop whatever it was he was holding and detained him at gunpoint (assuming it was a gun). At first he did not listen so they radioed for backup.

Ultimately, the kid's more sober friend convinced him to drop the cellphone which he was using to videotape them. At the time that they ordered him to drop it, they did not know it was just a cellphone.


Another example: The city I used to work in primarily was known to have lots of violence from the Mexican Mafia. During the time period when our officers were being videotaped, personal death threats and even attempts to murder some of the officers who worked the overnight shift of the city happened as a result of certain gang members hearing that their buddies had been arrested. Even if the arrest was totally legal and for a valid reason (like domestic violence).

Even I was told at one point that there was a hit on my life because I worked for the department and translated most of the time (as one of the only people on my shift who could translate).

My identity, in many cases, would not have been known had I not been taped.

Despite all this, I still think there's nothing wrong with video taping peace officers because those who work in law enforcement recognize the risk that comes with it. At the same time, it's not someone's right to video tape law enforcement despite being ordered to stop. If you choose to anyways, then you choose to accept the consequences that may come with that.
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
Be careful around cops. You might never know if he's some bully who wants to thump you & frame you.

A person should be careful around people in general.

As I said in an earlier post, most cops aren't any different then most regular people. And a criminally oriented cop is usually not all that different from a criminally oriented civilian.

The difference is that the cop might know ways to not get caught.

What really bothers me is when people will talk badly about those in certain positions (law enforcement, military, politics, etc) for doing things that people who aren't in those positions do all the time. Cops are people and members of society. Like every other member of society, they are capable of committing crimes, making mistakes, and causing trouble.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the entire profession is one of criminals and people with horrible character.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner

Besides, you can legally shout "F*&^ the police"and a cop can legally (again, it depends on the State because these things are largely state dependent) come and talk to you about it, and even detain you for it during the course of his/her investigation of your behavior.
It is our first amendment right to say that. Many state courts have been upholding that it is our right to flip off the police just because we feel like it, because it is our right of freedom of expression.

I disagree with that. I don't disagree with video or recording, but I disagree with the conception that there is some sort of right to do so.
It's been ruled if it's in public, it's fair game. That is why celebrities can do nothing about the paparazzi that bombard them in public places. Police are supposed to uphold the law, not be above it.
Police are, or at least should be before they even sign up for the job, very aware their own safety, as well as their families, may be compromised and a part of their job is risking their lives, potentially on a daily basis. However it is also a fact the police work for us. They aren't secret agents, they should not expect any special exclusions, and they have no legal standings to tell someone to not film them under most circumstances.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It doesn't necessarily mean that the entire profession is one of criminals and people with horrible character.
No, but it's practically a daily site to see a cop get stuck at a red light, and they will turn their lights and siren on just long enough to give some since of legality to go on through the red light. Or to speed, I've seen that one a few times. Or they will be off duty and on the cell phone and not wearing a seat belt (On duty, fine. They might be a situation where they will have to jump out of their car). Far too many cops let that little piece of scrap metal called a badge give them a since that they are above the law and can break it.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
I disagree with that. I don't disagree with video or recording, but I disagree with the conception that there is some sort of right to do so.

Depending on what is going on, your videoing could negatively impact the situation and place either yourself, the suspects, or the officers in danger.

Case in point, a classmate of mine was working one night and they received a call to a party that was going out of control (people were throwing beer bottles at the windows of the neighbors who'd called). The location was one where warrants had been served and weapons had been discovered. It was in the middle of an area that was known for gang violence. The neighbors who called said that they thought someone may have been armed due to threats being shouted out from partygoers.

My classmate and his partner rolled up to the scene and saw a young man with a black object in his hand that he was pointing at them. Given the distance, poor lighting, and the time of night, they ordered him to drop whatever it was he was holding and detained him at gunpoint (assuming it was a gun). At first he did not listen so they radioed for backup.

Ultimately, the kid's more sober friend convinced him to drop the cellphone which he was using to videotape them. At the time that they ordered him to drop it, they did not know it was just a cellphone.

That's not a problem with recording the situation with video; that's a problem with holding something that could be perceived as a weapon. Obviously you shouldn't be holding something that could be perceived as a weapon in a situation like that. But what we're talking about is more like them realizing it's just a cell phone taking video and that there is no danger, and simply telling him to stop recording because they don't want him recording the incident.

Another example: The city I used to work in primarily was known to have lots of violence from the Mexican Mafia. During the time period when our officers were being videotaped, personal death threats and even attempts to murder some of the officers who worked the overnight shift of the city happened as a result of certain gang members hearing that their buddies had been arrested. Even if the arrest was totally legal and for a valid reason (like domestic violence).

Even I was told at one point that there was a hit on my life because I worked for the department and translated most of the time (as one of the only people on my shift who could translate).

My identity, in many cases, would not have been known had I not been taped.

Still, that's a risk you take with the job. That's still not a reason to ban video recordings in general.

Despite all this, I still think there's nothing wrong with video taping peace officers because those who work in law enforcement recognize the risk that comes with it. At the same time, it's not someone's right to video tape law enforcement despite being ordered to stop. If you choose to anyways, then you choose to accept the consequences that may come with that.

Well, sure, but it should be legal to do so, and so, it should be illegal for them to tell you to stop (obviously excluding a situation where they might think it's a weapon). If they are arresting you for something else and need you to put down anything in your hands, that's one thing, but to just order you to stop recording them should not be legal.
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
It is our first amendment right to say that. Many state courts have been upholding that it is our right to flip off the police just because we feel like it, because it is our right of freedom of expression.


Again, it all depends on the state.


No, but it's practically a daily site to see a cop get stuck at a red light, and they will turn their lights and siren on just long enough to give some since of legality to go on through the red light.
Or to speed, I've seen that one a few times. Or they will be off duty and on the cell phone and not wearing a seat belt (On duty, fine. They might be a situation where they will have to jump out of their car). Far too many cops let that little piece of scrap metal called a badge give them a since that they are above the law and can break it.

It's not that they are above the law but are excepted by it. At least in California, police are basically exempt from traffic concerns when in performance of their duties.
I have never met a cop who thought they could willingly break the law. If a cop does something that a civilian can't, it doesn't mean they are breaking the law because there are lots of things they can do that civilians can't (like open carry loaded guns--At least in California).

As far as speeding and turning on lights only for intersections where there are red lights, most departments prioritize calls based on a number of factors.That being said, while a call might be serious, it might not be worth it to officially declare the call an "emergency call" and thus authorize a unit to go somewhere with lights and sirens (on most departments officers cannot drive from point A to point B with their lights and sirens on without authorization given over the radio--there are a number of reasons why this authorization might not be given such as heavy traffic, rain, risk, unknown details, etc--For instance, on our department if a call comes in that shots were heard and people were screaming outside, that by itself isn't enough to warrant light/sirens, but if someone is hit, then it is).

So if there is an important call (a good example is a fight between two people because that is often times not a call that is not given light/sirens authorization, but usually escalates to one if given enough time), but one is not authorized to use lights and sirens completely, then often times the practice is to drive speedily and use the lights/sirens at intersections.

Either way, with or without lights cops don't have to worry about certain traffic violations such as speeding, lane changing, etc as these things are left up to the individual agencies to regulate.

From personal experience, I've never seen a cop go through a red light without somewhere to go. Most of the time cops just drive around looking for stuff. It's their job to drive around. There's absolutely no reason to try to "get somewhere" faster because 70% of the time on patrol is just that, patrolling.

The other 30% is when there's stuff to go to, and how you get there is almost always your own judgment call. Whether you decide to drive the speed limit or over it, use your lights at intersections or not, etc. In fact, good cops won't really even be on surface streets that often because statistically crime doesn't occur on surface streets.

So if you see them driving on a surface street, they are probably going somewhere important.

I'm not saying this isn't abused, I'm saying it's not some sort of regular abuse that goes on and is tolerated. For all you know, it could just be that you live in a high-call area (high call does not mean high-crime. I once worked an area where people loved to call in prank calls, but due to the fact that about 40% of the time the call was serious, we had to treat each call seriously even if we could be relatively sure that the person calling was just prank calling).

Some other common factors are that usually authorization for an emergency call is only given to one or two units. So if you have felony domestic violence (which is a lights/sirens call) during rush hour, then they will probably only authorize one unit to roll with lights/sirens. Well, domestic violence calls are the number one calls on which cops die or get into use of force incidents. So if you're not authorized to go completely with lights and sirens, you'll at least want to drive quickly there so that the one unit who is going there isn't alone.

Sometimes, you can have a bunch of non-emergent, but important calls stacking up. For instance, you could have a call of a person threatening to commit suicide, a rowdy party, a robbery that occurred more than 5 minutes ago, a person not breathing, and a child abuse report all at the same time and yet only the person not breathing is a lights/sirens call. If the calls are constantly coming in quick, then you'll drive faster to all them to try and create time to handle important/emergency calls.

On a final note, you point out that cops work for the people. This is true. However, it doesn't change the fact that they come from the people and thus are no better than the people, are (for now) only required to have a high school diploma and thus consist of a large number of young people, working long hours, working holidays, and all for a pretty crappy paycheck and the potential loss of relationships. They must constantly deal with the worst people in society and hear and see in gruesome detail some of the worst crimes and all of that with very little time between calls to recoup. So while most cops may outwardly appear to be jerks keep in mind that they are still people, you don't know how their day has gone so far, and while this doesn't justify bad behavior, they're still only human and you shouldn't hold them to any higher standard than you do to any other human being.

The best thing for everyone would be education and an understanding that we're all responsible for upholding society and the law. Law enforcement simply do it for a living. It would probably also help to have greater psychological resources available for cops because I feel that lack of such resources is the cause of most problems.
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
Well, sure, but it should be legal to do so, and so, it should be illegal for them to tell you to stop (obviously excluding a situation where they might think it's a weapon). If they are arresting you for something else and need you to put down anything in your hands, that's one thing, but to just order you to stop recording them should not be legal.

I believe it should be legal, but not illegal for them to tell you to stop. It would make no sense to have such a law. There are so many reasons why they might want you to stop that you wouldn't necessary know at the time or ever come to know. Do you really think it would be worthwhile to make it illegal and seek criminal charges against cops for telling people to stop filming for the very few and rare instances where that filming occurs and isn't in the way?

Spectators do not always have a right to gain information about a situation involving law enforcement. Almost every situation involves the officer and another person. A lot of times the officer isn't allowed to just give out information on the other person or their situation. Sometimes it's simply out of courtesy to the suspect/victim/parties involved.

It's not just a matter of privacy for the cop, but for the people involved in whatever situation the cop is there for (because you probably wouldn't be video taping the cop by himself--there wouldn't be anything interesting about that).

Also, if you're close enough to be filming anything worthwhile, then it is extremely uncomfortable for the law enforcement personnel to have you standing that close and not being involved in the situation. I would imagine that in most cases cops telling people to "stop filming" could probably be translated as "could you do that over there" (over there being somewhere not so close to where you're filming).

Not only that, but you being as close as you are could be illegal. If you're on the freeway and you stop to film, you're holding up traffic. If you're on a street and you pull your car up behind a traffic stop to film, then you're interfering with the cops duties. If it's a call at a private residence you probably have no reason to be there. If you're the person talking to the cops, then it's just rude to be videotaping that situation and sort of shows a lack of seriousness on your part. If I called the police, one of my last thoughts would be "let me get the camera so I can film this interaction."

It just doesn't seem worth it to make it illegal for them to tell you to stop filming.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
A person should be careful around people in general.
Cops are different. It seems we have no right to self-defense if they want to abuse us under color of authority.
Our only legal recourse is to try to interest the courts in remedies. And this is where the cops' word carries more weight than ours.

What really bothers me is when people will talk badly about those in certain positions (law enforcement, military, politics, etc) for doing things that people who aren't in those positions do all the time. Cops are people and members of society. Like every other member of society, they are capable of committing crimes, making mistakes, and causing trouble.
This is to be expected. But their ease of escaping responsibility is problematic.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the entire profession is one of criminals and people with horrible character.
I agree....but there are enuf of'm to be worrisome.
And even good cops will help cover up abuses by their fellows....the blue wall, you know.

I have never met a cop who thought they could willingly break the law.
I have.

On a final note, you point out that cops work for the people. This is true. However, it doesn't change the fact that they come from the people and thus are no better than the people, are (for now) only required to have a high school diploma and thus consist of a large number of young people, working long hours, working holidays, and all for a pretty crappy paycheck and the potential loss of relationships. They must constantly deal with the worst people in society and hear and see in gruesome detail some of the worst crimes and all of that with very little time between calls to recoup. So while most cops may outwardly appear to be jerks keep in mind that they are still people, you don't know how their day has gone so far, and while this doesn't justify bad behavior, they're still only human and you shouldn't hold them to any higher standard than you do to any other human being.
This is where I really disagree....they should be held to a higher standard. With the power to order us around, beat on us, fine us, arrest us, & have greater sway in court, they should be well trained, emotionally stable, & committed to upholding the law & our civil liberties.

The best thing for everyone would be education and an understanding that we're all responsible for upholding society and the law. Law enforcement simply do it for a living. It would probably also help to have greater psychological resources available for cops because I feel that lack of such resources is the cause of most problems.
I agree. But I also see a great need to document cops' actions & to hold them accountable for violations.

Now, before any cop fans get upset, I also know some fine ex-cops.
My criticism is for the system which allows the bad apples too much leniency.
 
Last edited:

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
Cops are different. It seems we have no right to self-defense if they want to abuse us under color of authority.
Our only legal recourse is to try to interest the courts in remedies. And this is where the cops' word carries more weight than ours.
Legally speaking, in California at least, you have a right to defend yourself, with lethal force if necessary, from a cop that is abusing his power and is attempting to harm you.

Granted, your ability to prove that he was doing such is going to be extremely limited unfortunately.

I agree....but there are enuf of'm to be worrisome.
And even good cops will help cover up abuses by their fellows....the blue wall, you know.
I wouldn't say that good cops cover up abuses. Covering up corruption is corruption. What will happen, on occasion, is willful ignorance. For instance, if I don't know you did something you weren't supposed to, then I wont' have to deal with the loyalty versus what's right issue.

For instance, everyone that goes in the back seat gets buckled up by policy. If we never watch the other person put the suspect in the back, then we never know for sure whether or not the person was buckled. So if we get into an accident and the person hits their face on the metal grate, then when we are asked "Was the person buckled?" we respond with "I didn't put the person in the back, however it is our policy to buckle all those who we put in the back so you're going to have to ask my partner."

That way you don't lie, you don't compromise your loyalty, and you make the issue of integrity your partner's issue to deal with.

Knowing someone did something and covering it up is as corrupt as doing it yourself. Making sure that you don't know, while shady and most of the time unnecessary, can protect you in a lot of ways. You can't really control whether or not the people you work with are corrupt. Unfortunately, trying to take down a corrupt cop is as hard if not harder for cops. So when that even begins, it affects everyone because everyone who knew about the person's corruption is as liable for it as if they'd done it themselves. For a lot of cops, it is better to make sure you don't find out certain things in the interest of your career. Disloyalty can, unfortunately, ruin a career.

I wouldn't say that this is unique to the law enforcement profession however. It just gets more press than in other places.


So you met a cop who knew that an action was breaking the law and yet still thought it was OK because he was a cop?

This is where I really disagree....they should be held to a higher standard. With the power to order us around, beat on us, fine us, arrest us, & have greater sway in court, they should be well trained, emotionally stable, & committed to upholding the law & our civil liberties.
I agree, but I see this as an unrealistic expectation. First off determining how high this standard is, or even who defines the standard, will create issue.

Secondly, it takes time to mold people from regular society who are held to a "lower" standard up to a higher standard and cops are often in demand to the point where such molding would take to long to be worth it.

The best thing would be to raise the social standard in general and hold everyone to it. While I realize that this too is an unrealistic expectation, it places the responsibility for having good character on everyone. Not just on those who we hope have moral fortitude to maintain their character. It's extremely tough. Especially when the justice system does not work in favor of the cops. A lot of times, especially in CA with illegal immigrants increasingly committing crimes, the justice system completely fails meaning that cops end up having to arrest the same people for the same crimes over and over and over again, which can really lead to thoughts of pointlessness in your job.





I agree. But I also see a great need to document cops' actions & to hold them accountable for violations.

I agree. I simply don't think video is necessary. Audio works just as well (if not better since it's actually used more in cases involving police corruption) and is very cheap and easy to provide to a department.
 

Vendetta

"Oscar the grouch"
What if it's not an undercover cop? And even if it's not necessary to record all our interactions with police, it still shouldn't be illegal.

Well this is why they impose a psych test on police candidates. However as I mentioned before, what is deliberate, and illegal depends on city population.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
For instance, everyone that goes in the back seat gets buckled up by policy. If we never watch the other person put the suspect in the back, then we never know for sure whether or not the person was buckled. So if we get into an accident and the person hits their face on the metal grate, then when we are asked "Was the person buckled?" we respond with "I didn't put the person in the back, however it is our policy to buckle all those who we put in the back so you're going to have to ask my partner."
That way you don't lie, you don't compromise your loyalty, and you make the issue of integrity your partner's issue to deal with.
Knowing someone did something and covering it up is as corrupt as doing it yourself. Making sure that you don't know, while shady and most of the time unnecessary, can protect you in a lot of ways. You can't really control whether or not the people you work with are corrupt. Unfortunately, trying to take down a corrupt cop is as hard if not harder for cops. So when that even begins, it affects everyone because everyone who knew about the person's corruption is as liable for it as if they'd done it themselves. For a lot of cops, it is better to make sure you don't find out certain things in the interest of your career. Disloyalty can, unfortunately, ruin a career.
It sounds like you're describing a concerted effort to create plausible deniability for the purpose of covering up malfeasance/misfeasance.
I don't find that acceptable.

So you met a cop who knew that an action was breaking the law and yet still thought it was OK because he was a cop?
Yes....he worked for me long enuf that he felt comfortable enuf to divulge what he & his fellows were up to in Genesee County, MI.

I agree, but I see this as an unrealistic expectation. First off determining how high this standard is, or even who defines the standard, will create issue.
Secondly, it takes time to mold people from regular society who are held to a "lower" standard up to a higher standard and cops are often in demand to the point where such molding would take to long to be worth it.
The best thing would be to raise the social standard in general and hold everyone to it. While I realize that this too is an unrealistic expectation, it places the responsibility for having good character on everyone. Not just on those who we hope have moral fortitude to maintain their character. It's extremely tough. Especially when the justice system does not work in favor of the cops. A lot of times, especially in CA with illegal immigrants increasingly committing crimes, the justice system completely fails meaning that cops end up having to arrest the same people for the same crimes over and over and over again, which can really lead to thoughts of pointlessness in your job.
I never said it would be easy. The only easy part is my armchair carping & prescribing.

I agree. I simply don't think video is necessary. Audio works just as well (if not better since it's actually used more in cases involving police corruption) and is very cheap and easy to provide to a department.
Depending upon local law, videorecording is more likely legal.
We should use whatever means are at our disposal.

You must be absolutely worn out from all these lengthy posts!
 
Last edited:

zenzero

Its only a Label
Friends,

If we see that POLITICS too is a career and individuals entering politics spends money and time to make it a career why??
For the good of his brothers [others] ?? not entirely am sure not everyone for sure.
Politics too is driven by power hungry [desires] and so those who are on the side of the law who creates and protects those laws always tries to protect themselves by trying to create a feeling that they are above law itself and so the human problem where the protectors themselves becomes the attackers.
It is again back to the drawing boards, back to the beginning back to human mind and transcending the mind.

Love & rgds
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner

Again, it all depends on the state.
No, it doesn't. The constitution is the most supreme law of the land, and it is the law that no state law can contradict it.

As far as speeding and turning on lights only for intersections where there are red lights, most departments prioritize calls based on a number of factors.
There is nothing priority about a cop hitting their lights and siren, driving through a red light, and turning them off when the car is across the intersection. These pigs are blatantly abuse their power.
What really burns me is when they leave their cars turned on and sitting, sometimes a half hour, hour, and on up. They take extended lunch breaks, easily over an hour long. Me and a friend vocally complained when we was at a Waffle House for three hours waiting to see how long they would sit.

What really bothers me is when people will talk badly about those in certain positions (law enforcement, military, politics, etc) for doing things that people who aren't in those positions do all the time. Cops are people and members of society. Like every other member of society, they are capable of committing crimes, making mistakes, and causing trouble.
That's called being human. People also tend to like complaining about things in general they aren't satisfied with.

"The dog smelled something" is the do-as-we-please-&-to-hell-with-the-law card.
Especially when the dog isn't even their. :149:I think it should be considered animal cruelty to force an animal into such a dangerous line of work.

If I had it my way, the location of each police care would be known at all times, and it would be recorded each and every time they use their lights and sirens, and must provide a reason as to why they were on. After all if it's real police duty, they are calling it in anyways. And they would be required to have weekly and frequent random drug testing. And any crimes they commit carry normal penalties, plus a category for breaking their sworn oath to uphold the law. They should all be outstanding citizens, not a heard of sadistic pigs on a power trip.
 
Last edited:

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
It sounds like you're describing a concerted effort to create plausible deniability for the purpose of covering up malfeasance/misfeasance.
I don't find that acceptable.
I don't either.

We should use whatever means are at our disposal.
We have to be able to do so but at the same time not hinder crime-fighting ability and effectiveness.

You must be absolutely worn out from all these lengthy posts!
I spend a lot of time being bored so I really don't mind.


No, it doesn't. The constitution is the most supreme law of the land, and it is the law that no state law can contradict it.
And the Constitution is interpreted by courts. It depends on the state because, like it or not, a cop cannot decide not to obey a court's decision.

There is nothing priority about a cop hitting their lights and siren, driving through a red light, and turning them off when the car is across the intersection. These pigs are blatantly abuse their power.
What really burns me is when they leave their cars turned on and sitting, sometimes a half hour, hour, and on up. They take extended lunch breaks, easily over an hour long. Me and a friend vocally complained when we was at a Waffle House for three hours waiting to see how long they would sit.


All I read here is bias, not thought.

If I had it my way, the location of each police care would be known at all times, and it would be recorded each and every time they use their lights and sirens, and must provide a reason as to why they were on.


Many departments already do this.

After all if it's real police duty, they are calling it in anyways. And they would be required to have weekly and frequent random drug testing.

Drug testing is frequent and random. Maybe not weekly, but definitely frequent. If you did it every week it wouldn't be random.

And it makes no sense because drug testing is expensive and there simply aren't enough cases of cops abusing drugs (or even regular people abusing drugs) for that to be worth it. Besides, who would pay for that?

And any crimes they commit carry normal penalties, plus a category for breaking their sworn oath to uphold the law
If a cop commits a crime, he/she does get the same penalty, and often times will get a worse penalty because of the fact that he/she should have known better.

They should all be outstanding citizens, not a heard of sadistic pigs on a power trip.
Do you know enough outstanding citizens who are willing and capable of making an effective police force? Because if you do, please point them out. While you're looking for them, departments will continue to be made up of regular people who, at the very least, haven't sunken as low as many of their counterparts. Sometimes someone with a clean record, a healthy psyche, no history of drug use, a high school education and a willingness to put themselves in harms way is the best that departments have to choose from.

Either way, the best solution to the problem is education for everyone. Bad people in positions of power is not the problem of any one particular profession or group, it is society's problem as a whole. We could address the symptoms by doing what you suggest, or we could address the root if we all swallow our pride, accept that none of us are perfect, and start working on ways to fix the problems.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner


All I read here is bias, not thought.
It's not bias, but hard fact that it is an every day site to see these cops abuse their power. Not everywhere, not all of them, but it says alot when the entire narcotics unit is under investigation because large amounts of evidence was found to be missing.
 
Top