Slashdot Mirror
Couple Who Catch Cop Speeding Could Face Charges
a_nonamiss writes "A Georgia couple, apparently tired of people speeding past their house, installed a camera and radar gun on their property. After it was installed, they caught a police office going 17MPH over the posted limit. They brought this to the attention of the local police department, and are now being forced to appear in front of a judge to answer to charges of stalking."
apparently tired of people speeding past their house
Well, according to the article "They have said they did so in hopes of convincing neighbors to slow down to create a safe environment for their son."
thinkofthechildren will get you a lot futher than speed.
Have you read my journal today?
Like any job that any of us have, most people work in order to better their own lives. We work out deals with our employers to enter a relationship where both parties profit -- the worker doesn't have to worry about handling the day-to-day surivival of the business, and the employer fulfills a position that he/she can not do as efficiently as the employee. All employment is mutually beneficial or the two parties would not enter into the agreement in the first place. This is true of all positions, but it is especially true of any "public" official -- cops, public school teachers, politicians.
The problem with public officials is that they have the right to use excessive force in order to protect their position. The average citizen has no right to call out any public official on any illegal actions since the average citizen has no real power against non-elected public officials. If a cop breaks the law, there is almost nothing you can do to fight them. There is a lot they can do, off the public record, that can harm you more than they harm you in their lawbreaking. Remember, cops are not here to protect you, there are there to protect their jobs -- and many of them love the power they wield over the average citizen. Why else do we have cop unions?
We are not free from the tyranny of cameras -- many police cars already have them, and they are not audited by any watchdog group. Our phones can be tapped, but we have no right to listen in on the phones of those who supposedly serve us. The public official is the watchdog of the general public, not vice versa. Is it any wonder that I am anti-State?
What you do on your property is no one's responsibility but yours. If someone's light-rays that bounce off their body enter your property, they are now YOUR property. You might even say that those light-rays are pollution, but I think that is pushing the definition of pollution a little too far. When a bunch of cops stopped an alleged speeder in front of my old house, I complained about the constant blue and red lights and strobes keeping me awake -- I was told I have no right to prevent it. If a cop speeds in front of my house, I should be able to to make note of it, but I can not. Informing your elected official about the problem will do only one thing -- give them reason to make a new law protecting their kin in tyranny. It surely won't help you, it won't bring you more freedom.
Don't be shocked as the tyrants find more ways to increase their power of tyranny. They are not here to help you, there are not here to protect you -- there are there to protect their own incomes and pensions, and you are powerless to stop it as long as you continue to vote into office people who love the authoritarian powers attached to both the liberal and conservative sides of the political system. When will people learn that it isn't left or right, it is pro-tyranny and against-tyranny -- liberals and conservatives are on the "pro-tyranny" side of the coin. The opposite side of the coin is not a libertarian, as some might think, but an anarcho-capitalist.
You will reap what you sow, friends. These folks put up cameras because the police did nothing for them to prevent speeders. This is to be expected -- when you need help, you won't find any.
To protect and to serve?
Your ad could be here!
You don't actually own the road in front of your house. They should increase the speed limit by 20mph to show this couple who's in charge.
Read all about it here
Interesting story.
Wow, that's one fast police office!
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
I've frequently seen officers exceeding the limit simply because they can. Ego trip? You bet.
Someone has an odd sense of humor. What's so funny about the police misusing their power? Yeah, that Rodney King thing a few years ago was a real yuk-fest. And tasering that college student in the library to the point he was shrieking in pain? I couldn't stop chuckling after that one...
A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person.
The key phrase here is "for the purpose of harassing and intimidating". The statute goes on to define this:
"For the purposes of this article, the term "harassing and intimidating" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes emotional distress by placing such person in reasonable fear for such person's safety or the safety of a member of his or her immediate family, by establishing a pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior, and which serves no legitimate purpose."
In order to convict the people in this case the state of Georgia would have to prove they were causing the officer emotional distress and "establish a pattern" of behavior. From what is shown the office got caught once, and that does not constitute a pattern, therefore there is no harassment and no stalking. (There are also several other problems if you apply the facts to the law such as the emotional distress--is the officer suffering from depression because he got caught speeding? And you have the defense of legitimate purpose; the couple could easily argue there is a legitimate purpose).
This is just a case of the police force trying to intimidate someone who caught an officer doing something maybe they should not have been doing. The problem is that when this hits big in the media it is going to be a larger embarrassment than if the police department just told the people the truth or lied and said it was official business.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
The couple then placed the entire Bartow County Police Department under citizen's arrest for intimidation...
"Read all about it here"
Careful! They'll press charges on you for slashdotting them!
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
I was actually considering putting a digital camcorder in my car to record what I see, to show people how idiotic the drivers are in my area. Basically, what they do is camp the passing lane or otherwise form walls that slow down traffic well below what should be possible given the road size and traffic level. Yes, even 18-wheelers camp the passing lane. On a three-lane freeway.
Then one time I saw a police car on the freeway that did exactly that. Thanks, Officer Jerk, for setting a great example.
Personally, I wish more cops would speed. Everyone feels compelled to go slower than the police, so whenever a police car is nearby, the cars around them turn to molasses. It's amazing.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
It seems if the matter were to be brought to court, it wouldn't get far I imagine. I think the cop got as far as he did just because he is a cop. If it were someone else, nothing would have happened. I am guessing someone told the cop he was being an idiot, which is probably what any cop would tell anyone else trying to press charges.
Couple Who Catch Cop Speeding Could Face Charges
Certainly, capricious captions claim: Careless Cop Caught Cutting Celerity Cap; Criminal Court Charges Capturing Couple
Cartersville: Child-caring couple connect camera, chronicalling cop cutting celertity cap. Court...
Have you read my journal today?
So... does this mean I can sue the state over those roadside radar systems that snap pictures of your vehicle if you break the speed limit? I mean, isn't that harassment then too? It is surveillance, and it is meant to intimidate me into driving a certain way.
Unfortunately, only those few who have been on the receiving end of 'protection' know that what you say is mostly true. Don't let the facade fool you kids, grownups care about #1 only, and that includes cops. And the reason I post this anonymously is because I fear retribution from those 'protectors'. It's an ugly bunch and they take care of their own at any cost.
Or, more likely, someone in the PD got clued in to impending PR disaster and changed his mind for him.
I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
It's just like privacy. Can the government read your mail and tap your phone. Yes. Can you read what the government produces on your dime? Not on your life. Why that would invade the privacy of the republic.
Maybe their kid should not be playing in the street. Streets are for cars, take him to the playground, thats for kids. I can almost guarantee no cars will come barreling down the slide and hit him/her.
It is incidents like this and so many others (the police arressting people for taking a picture of their actions, etc.) which cry out for David Brin's "Transparent Society"http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html.
Bring on the cameras! Just give the ordinary citizens the right to access the feeds and observe and watch those who are the watchers. If a police officer knew a live feed of their activities was going out via the web, don't you think they would be a little bit more carefully in how they treat people?
Yours,
Jordan
Nice find.
For those that are too lazy to read either article, it seems that they were also emailing the officer in question about his speeding and he wanted some kind of court order to prevent them from continuing to email them. Neither article clearly specifies what exactly the "stalking" was referring to: the actual recording of the speeding event, or the constant emails he received from them (or perhaps both).
If local cops are mis-behaving, this is what IAD is for, and if IAD is corrupt, that's what the FBI is for, and if the FBI is corrupt, that's what Canada is for. :)
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I can't say that I'm surprised to read that this happened in Kennesaw, Georgia. For those of you who don't know what kind of place Kennesaw is, it has a law that requires the head of every household to own a firearm with ammunition. It's also the place that former US Representative Bob Barr called home and he was much loved there. That should give you an idea of the politics of the place, so no, I'm not surprised at all by this.
The officer was in a public place where anybody can see you or photograph you.
How is this possibly stalking? How is this different than being in any public place, and getting caught on any form of camera (either privately or publically owned)?
Aren't there precedents which basically say you have no expectation of privacy when you're in a public area?
I hope the judge in this case demonstrates some common sense.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I've seen cops who drive poorly for no reason multiple times. They are on a leasurely pace, and then suddenly change lanes without signaling (most were not highway patrol). If nobody keeps them in check, who will?
Table-ized A.I.
Remote controlled tricycle with fake kid doll on the trike. Boy would that be a hoot! (disclaimer: not to be tried by anyone!)
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
It is funny that you list one tyrannous group after another in order to try to "fix" the initial group -- the local police.
If Wal*Mart serves me badly, against what I consider a profitable exchange, I stop shopping there. Eventually, we see stores fail -- even big ones, often. If Burger King serves me badly, against what I consider a profitable exchange, I stop eating there. Eventually, we see restaurants fail -- even big ones, often. If the police serve me badly, what can I do? I can risk upsetting them by tattling on them. I can not stop using them, because I am forced to pay for them. Even worse, if I stop paying for them, guess who can come knocking on my door, with force? The very same people I am not happy with.
Your solution sounds great, but how often would any of us take the risk to tattle on them? For proof, see original article.
Lawyers contruct a legal system that suites them, not one that best protects the citizens.
The court system is constructed to put the courts ahead of anyone else. Contempt of court is a very big deal.
Tax accountants construct a tax system that is too complicated for Joe Average to use, so you need to hire a tax consultant.
Cops have a system that serves cops...
Engineering is the art of compromise.
So what do those of us in Canada do ?
don't police cars have those bumper stickers that say
"How's my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234"
They don't?
Well, you could always, CONTACT BARTOW COUNTY MAGISTRATE COURT and give them a piece of your mind!
I think that anyone who feels this is injustice has an obligation as a citizen to contact the office of their elected or representative official and tell them they will not stand for this kind of tyranny!
If a cop breaks the law, there is almost nothing you can do to fight them. There is a lot they can do, off the public record, that can harm you more than they harm you in their lawbreaking. Remember, cops are not here to protect you, there are there to protect their jobs -- and many of them love the power they wield over the average citizen. Why else do we have cop unions?
Hardly, while there are obvious examples of "cops getting away" with things, you act as if this isn't already reflected in the general community. In our local paper, two cops have been fired and are awaiting criminal trials for abuse of power, so not all cops get away with everything. Conversely, there are plentiful examples of citizens "getting away" with numerous crimes. It's a general part of the system. Plus, your whole comment about "why else do we have cop unions" is laughable. I assume then that you consider all unions evil? Your grossly overgeneralized comments could be said about anyone in any profession (remember, the developer isn't there to help you, their just there to keep their jobs). Puleeze, anyone past the 4th grade can see how simplistic (but apparently popular) statement that is.
What you do on your property is no one's responsibility but yours.
I think you are confusing "responsibility" with something else? I think even cops would agree, ultimately YOU have responsibility over what happens on your property (certainly all personal injury lawyers agree with this).
When a bunch of cops stopped an alleged speeder in front of my old house, I complained about the constant blue and red lights and strobes keeping me awake -- I was told I have no right to prevent it.
I guess they should have let the guy continue speeding through your residential neighborhood until they got to some place where he wouldn't disturb anyones sleep? Or they should have turned off their lights, thereby increasing the chances that they might get hit by other motorists? Plus, look at your statement above. The street in front of your house is owned by the city (or county), you absolutely have the right to erect a barrier to block the light, as long as it doesn't run afoul of any local ordinances. So on your property, do what you want, the police, or anyone else, have no obligation to you while on public property.
These folks put up cameras because the police did nothing for them to prevent speeders. This is to be expected -- when you need help, you won't find any.
Again, nice oversimplification. Are these folks willing to pay more in taxes to get more police on the streets to help THEIR particular problem? I live in a predominantly quiet neighborhood and we are very sensitive to speeders, but I don't walk around thinking that MY problem is the biggest and/or only problem in the city.
Your diatribe is humorous, and many will take your side. They choose to take the simple view of life, however far it differs from reality. That's why systems fail, not necessarily because of faults in the system, but because of the supreme lack of understanding by those who are trying to implement it. It's like OpenOffice vs M$ Office, all the rhetoric about FOSS being "better" don't mean squat if you can't get something implemented that is better. While you may have won some kind of "moral" victory (and that is dubious at best), you have not truly helped the general populace.
Here is the facts:
Cops are people.
There are good people and there are bad people.
Therefore, there are good cops and bad cops.
My best friend is a police officer in Phoenix. He is truly a great guy. The whole reason why he wanted to be a police officer is because he wanted to help people. I believe him when he says it because he's done some crazy things like running out in traffic to render aid to really bad accident at an intersection. When he is off duty, he really is a friendly guy.
I went to visit him, and he drove me around when we went out. Even off duty, he drove like a speed demon. I asked him what happens if he got pulled over for speeding. He said he simply shows the cop his police identification, and the cop will let him go about his way. So there you have it, he speeds because he can, not because he is on some evil power trip. Would you speed if you know you wouldn't get a ticket? I sure would. Hell, I still speed regardless.
I live in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Even our mayor, some one who you would probably see as part of the "tryannical government", got in big trouble for following a speeding cop. All he was doing was try to get the cops license number, but instead he got a heafty fine.
So the problem isn't with the "tryannical" government trying to oppress us, as you so FUDingly pointed out. Nor is it the cops themselves. It's policies with in the police department. I'm sure someone has the power to change the policies, whether it's the sherriff or the mayor. Just remember, if we force police to pull themselves over, we are forcing them to work against each other.
Please stop pinning cops as assholes on a power trip. Maybe some of them are that way because they never get any respect, even when they are trying to help.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
This is definitely the norm here. Whenever I see a cop speeding (which is a frequent occurrence) they are almost always going much faster than the other cars, even if they don't have their lights on or don't appear to have an urgent need to get somewhere.
One time I was driving around atlanta and was going about 15-20 over in the far left lane, when I saw a cop coming up behind me very fast. I thought I was fucked and would be getting a ticket, so I move over to the right, figuring he will want to pull me over on the right side. Instead he just blew by me like I was standing still.
The cops routinely get away with this because really, who is going to stop them.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
> The problem with public officials is that they have the right to use excessive force in order to protect their position. The average citizen has no right to call out any public official on any illegal actions since the average citizen has no real power against non-elected public officials.
/more/ difficult to solve.
/imagine/ the possibilities for abuse - by individuals, that is - should such a property law be passed. "You stepped on my grass, so it's legal for me to eat you!"
This is simply untrue. One might say that, in execution, public officials sometimes have greater power than the average citizen - and one would be quite right in saying that - but by the law, with the exception of those acts which must be allowed in order for public servants to do their jobs, every citizen of the United States has the same rights. Your expression of dismay is righteous, as far as it objects to those cases where public officials abuse their authority, but beyond that, you're simply painting all government employees with a tremendously wide brush, overgeneralizing to the point of uselessness.
And it's worth noting that this officer has withdrawn his application for a warrant. My instinct says that he shouldn't have applied for one in the first place, but, like you, I know vastly too little about the actual circumstances to make any judgement against the officer.
For every case of a police officer abusing his power, there are literally millions of cases of police officers simply doing their jobs. Broad statements like yours distort the problem, actually making it
> There is a lot they can do, off the public record, that can harm you more than they harm you in their lawbreaking.
As can anyone else. Government employees have no monopoly on abusive actions taken off public record.
> Remember, cops are not here to protect you, there are there to protect their jobs -- and many of them love the power they wield over the average citizen. Why else do we have cop unions?
False dilemma. You give two choices - unions exist, therefore either police are here to protect their jobs, or to protect you. The third option is that like anyone else in any other job, they're there to do both. I suggest you spend some time with actual police officers before you start throwing around statements like, "cops are not here to protect you." Ignorance always sounds foolish.
> If someone's light-rays that bounce off their body enter your property, they are now YOUR property.
It's amusing, because I'm quite anti-government - anti-restriction-of-individual-liberty, actually - but even I wouldn't go so far as to say that any light rays which enter my property now belong to me. Is this true of air, as well? I cannot
> When will people learn that it isn't left or right, it is pro-tyranny and against-tyranny -- liberals and conservatives are on the "pro-tyranny" side of the coin. The opposite side of the coin is not a libertarian, as some might think, but an anarcho-capitalist.
Oh, gods. Yes, we'll all certainly have more pleasant lives under anarcho-capitalism.
I don't want to criticize you, as a person, and I apologize if I appear to have done so, but your views are worth of ridicule, as is the lack of reasoning behind them, even if you, personally, are not.
As much as I despise new laws always popping up, I *really* wish we could make it legal to audio/video record *any* government official in the course of their work. Without notice or permission. If they're "on the job" they should be fair game for being recorded by their employer (us). It would solve a lot of problems if "they" didn't think they were above "us."
What you have implied but not stated is that you are angry with people because they prevent you from speeding by themselves driving the speed limit. If you can't get over the fact that some of your fellow motorists are obeying the speed limit in the "passing lane" then consider getting help so that you can manage stress less destructively. The person creating safety issues and causing accidents in the scenario you describe is not the person obeying the traffic regulations by driving the speed limit, be it Officer Jerk, Truck Driver Jimmy, or Motorist John, it is, in fact, most likely you.
anarcho-capitalism puts the power into the hands of the corporations in most cases, as they are much better organized than the same number of joe-schmoe citizens.
It is just trading a government tyranny for a corporate tyranny. It least in the former the goal is sort-of "protect the people", in the latter the goal is "get more money and power to the people on top".
I'd prefer a true democracy where all public officials are elected - or randomly chosen for set terms, with a public no-confidence vote option.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Not so fast there, buddy. You obviously haven't heard of our infamous RCMP, famous for criminalizing all kinds of innocent people...
'Stalking' !?-- What the elderly couple were following the cop around for days, intimidating him? Let me guess, the cop is scared for his life now, and cannot get up and go to work because of the tremendous fear he is experiencing...
The lesson this couple should learn (and everyone else for that matter) is the cops are not there to help you. Everyone needs to say that many times over. I have heard countless times how people confessed to crimes they did or did not commit because cops convinced them that they are somehow 'a friend' and are just trying 'to help'.
These people are living in an imaginary dream world, where justice and goodness prevails, the officials and police are righteous, honorible men, with integrity.
BARTOW COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
135 W Cherokee Ave
Suite 368
Cartersville, Georgia 30120
Phone (770) 387-5080
Fax (770) 387-5085
Office Hours: 8:00 am - 5:00 pm
T. Joseph Campbell, District Attorney
So he can regulary go above the speed limit in non-emergency situations and not have to face any consequences? Kind of like having a job at Mcdonalds and getting free fries... The only difference is you can kill someone with french fries.
Evidently not us.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Angleyne: You can't bend that girder - it's unbendable! Bender: Well I don't know anything about lifting, so that ju
In theory, a judge should be immune from public opinion. They're there to interpret the law as written, not rationalize something just because it's what the people want.
If it turns out that these people are likely to be convicted, that's the time to start writing, but you'd want to contact your legislators or the person pressing charges, not the judge.
Right on brother. To think, when cops first started carrrying guns, the idea of a standing army during peace time was controversial.
I disagree. I've seen to many examples of "nice" cops (and the courts who support them) who turn ruthless if confronted with evidence that they are breaking the rules.
Even "nice" cops are fundamentally in love with their power over others. And this includes some of my relatives in law enforcement. They just love the fact that they can make your life hell if you are just an average joe.
Like most bullies, they are abject cowards when it comes to people with real power (and rightfully so since the cops get the same treatment when they try to enforce real rules on people in power). You cross the wrong person- your career is over. You might as well leave law enforcement and go be a milk maid.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
a->b, a->c does not mean that b->c
For instance:
NFL Players are people.
People are women and men.
NFL Players are women and men.
I'm not saying there aren't bad cops by any means, just point out that it isn't good logic.
I want to know what the Sipples' were doing with the evidence of people speeding. Moreso, what was their course of action after videotaping a speeder? There was a follow-up article about the officer involved dropping charges, though mentioning that he was being repeatedly emailed by the Sipples.
I think what might be getting missed here is that it wasn't so much the action of videotaping speeders, but what perhaps was being done afterwards. Here's my speculation: They were getting license plates looked up after reviewing the tape of speeding vehicles, then calling/emailing the offender and harassing them. If this were the case, then such charges might have some sort of grounds.
Why did they not just turn the tapes over to authorities? Because the cops can't write tickets based off of it. None of the equipment was certified calibrated, etc., etc., basically, the taped evidence would not stand up in a court of law. At best, the tapes would encourage law enforcement to take some action, after delivering some evidence that a problem may exist. But in most cases, there's not enough manpower/money/equipment to setup a targeted enforcement area (the typical excuse given). So where does this leave these people? You got it, vigilantism. They start to take matters into their own hands. Harassment and intimidation are the first step of the process.
From what I can tell, there's a lot of crucial information that is not being told in this article that might reveal a much different picture. Was the officer in a police car or his private vehicle? How did they alert authorities? Did they contact this police officer directly and imply (threaten?) that they caught him speeding? Yes, this may just be a case of Officer Hardass getting upset and retaliating against someone pointing out his malfeasances, but it might also be a case of some citizens getting a little overzealous in their pursuit to resolve a problem.
Suppose I come up to you in a place that you have every right to be, like a public library, or your front yard. I tell you to leave, and when you say no I beat you into a bloody pulp with a cricket bat.
You earned it -- all you had to do was get up an leave.
Maybe I'm just being Canadian and all, but paranoid much? Wow.
let me correct the above statement:
The guy that got your fries last time you went to McDonald's or Burger King or whatever, doesn't care about you...but the police officer, firefighter, engineer, doctor, or other professionals do...at least to the extent their profession requires.
You see, once you've gone past the menial labor industry, your job becomes more than simply 'how you earn your income' or 'what you do for a living', it becomes part of how you identify yourself as a person.
While there will always be exceptions to any rule, in general, the police officer became a police officer because something about that profession appealed to who he was.
Nothing wrong with being vigilant against abuses of power, but the particulars of this case don't exactly herald a fall into totalitarianism just yet...to wit:
1) Said section of road was at the base of a steep hill
2) The couple had sent numerous e-mails to the officer and, in fact, the charge he filed was "stalking"...he has since dropped those charges. As I understand, the couple was never charged with pointing a camera at a public road.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
So, wait, his off-duty speeding is somehow more legitimate than when I speed? Explain the reasoning there. Is it somehow safer for him to speed? Do the laws of physics bend a little for cops and make a car driven by a cop at 75 MPH do the same damage as a car crashing at 55 MPH with a civvie behind the wheel?
"Because you can" is no more a valid excuse for police to break the law than it is for me. The difference is that they can chose to enforce the rules when and if they choose. Speeding on the job, when required, is overlooked because it is usually required to perform a task that benefits the public safety. Driving around at 20 MPH over the limit just because they can is endangering the public safety. That's why we have speed limits to begin with. If they want to drive like bats out of hell even when it isn't needed, perhaps they should push to do away with speed limits.
You're right, though. Police are people too, not evil overlords bent on dominating everyone else. As such, they should be held to the same standards as the rest of us.
Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
The idea that the government works against "regular" citizens is one of the most dangerous and destructive lies told by the so called freedom movement.
The government is made up of people, JUST LIKE YOU AND ME, who want to do good and sometimes fail for the same reasons that all people fail. Corporations are no better, no matter how smart anyone is, you cannot create a society based on pure individualism.
So please stop projecting your own failures on others, and start working WITH your friends and neighbors instead of against them.
Well... okay, but what do you do in an anarchic society when people misbehave?
When you have everyone acting according to their own beliefs and interests, what's to stop injustice from occurring? How do you prevent mob rule and the glass ceiling? For that matter, how do you prevent and punish something as trivial as shoplifting?
If you bother to follow the link to the article, it is a short summary, followed by mentioning that if you'd like to read the article (as in, you know, the news, and hopefully some details), to go get the paper.
Creating a front-page Slashdot story out of this is just plain stupid.
Find an actual article with some facts, or don't post the story. Sure, it's common on slashdot to think that the police are out to get you, but there is no reason to believe that the summary is in any way an accurate portrayal of the situation.
-dave
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
Why should cops get to break the law when they want to? Not saying they are tyrannical, but they are no more special than you or me. Next time you get pulled over, ask the cop why he is giving you a ticket. He'll say "Speeding causes accidents, so we ticket people to make them slow down." or something to that effect. So are you trying to say that cops can drive better than the average person? Is this because they go on a neat training course where they learn how to drive fast? If that's the case, then I should be able to take that class as a private citizen and get a license to speed as well.
I don't think that cops are sitting around laughing and speeding because they are assholes. In reality, I think the whole speed enforcement racket is a joke. But, if they are going to expect me to pay fines because I am speeding and say it's to increase public safety, then they need to follow the same damn laws. If this guy was legitimately on the way to an emergency, then he should have had his lights and siren on. If it was a "silent call" then there is a protocol for that, too. But if it was neither of them, then he should get a fine and get points on his license just like the rest of us.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
For some reason cops in GA seem to have never thought about trying to set a good example when it comes to driving. We also have a TON of towns that rely on traffic citations for income. We truly do have some shitty police departments and municipalities in this state.
"A Lisp programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing." - Alan Perlis
That sounds like a job for the FBI.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
In order to convict the people in this case the state of Georgia would have to prove they were causing the officer emotional distress and "establish a pattern" of behavior. From what is shown the office got caught once, and that does not constitute a pattern, therefore there is no harassment and no stalking.
You should have spent less time on your post, and more time reading the article(s). They repeatedly emailed him about the matter, and he felt it was harassment. We haven't seen the emails, now have we?
The second article says he wanted to meet with the couple to ask them to stop emailing him. They refused, and when it came down to decision time, he asked the judge to drop the request for an arrest warrant.
I'm pretty tired of speeding being too high a priority in this nation; there's only indirect links between speeding and collisions/injuries/deaths, but it is a mountain made out of a molehill because insurance companies and "public safety officials" want us to believe that speed is the only, or primary, factor in crashes.
That said- this couple were treading on the fine line of harassment AND the cop took the "high road", backing down. Much of the whiny comments posted under this story are unjustified.
Please help metamoderate.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions."
This reminds me of the case (again, near Atlanta) of a vegan being arrested and sent to jail for writing down the license plate number of an unmarked cop car that Homeland Security sent to photograph the protester.
Fortunately the ACLU took up the case .
To show the truth of this, and to point out the absurdity, anyone who is engaged in political protest is targeted in an effort to intimidate -- even the police themselves. When the police publicly protested the slow pace of their contract talks with the city, they too were videotaped, photographed, and harassed . They were very surprised, because they were police themselves.
If you look at that situation in terms of the system being mostly in maintaining itself, then it would be natural for the system to fear and harass anyone pushing for change, even the police themselves.
Hopefully the "new media" of blogs and other internet information will help become an effective counterweight to the immense power of the authoritarian elements of our government. Meanwhile, don't be too surprised at finding other examples of creeping authoritarianism in our country. A grandmother in Atlanta was shot and killed by plainclothes police when they invaded her home no-knock raid at night . She thought they were robbers trying to break in when she wounded three of them and was killed by return fire. All they found in her house was a small amount of marijuana. They tried to get an informant to lie and say that he told them that drugs were being sold there after the whole affair becam a public relations nightmare.
Another good example of how we mess things up when we socialize things that could've been left up to the free market. Of course, NOT socializing law creation, law enforcement, and law adjudication is a radical idea to most people. But then again, so is NOT socializing education, sports, or health care.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Is it any wonder that I am anti-State?
Well, a little, since the best thing anyone has been able to offer as an alternative is exactly the same thing, only with "State" replaced by "corporate oligarchy", with exactly the same problems only without the thin veneer of accountability created by a representative government to prevent wholesale profiteering off of the populace.
In Libertarian Crazy Land, the only difference would be that at no point would the corporate-run security officers even have to pretend to care about serving you or having the general public interest at heart. They would explicitly work on behalf of the interests of the company that hired them.
When will people learn that it isn't left or right, it is pro-tyranny and against-tyranny -- liberals and conservatives are on the "pro-tyranny" side of the coin. The opposite side of the coin is not a libertarian, as some might think, but an anarcho-capitalist.
Libertarianism taken to an extreme is anarcho-capitalism. The big problem is that while anarcho-capitalism may be an anti-tyranny belief system, it is absolutely positively 100% a pro-tyranny political system. Or in other words, Anarchy is the best government in theory, and the worst in practice. In theory there's no difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is. Forget this at your peril.
Other than that, good job on the anti-authoritarian screed. If you Libertarians would just stop allowing your ideas to be pushed all the way to anarcho-capitalism, I'd actually agree with you most of the time.
The enemies of Democracy are
The problem with public officials is that they have the right to use excessive force in order to protect their position. The average citizen has no right to call out any public official on any illegal actions since the average citizen has no real power against non-elected public officials.
The problem is probably more closely related to the fact that, in part due to the libertarian ravings about "the gubmint" like your own, in part due to the dissolution of community, people have stopped seeing *themselves* as the source of civic power and have therefore chosen to be governed rather than govern themselves. Eliminating civic power is one choice, of course, but really, it simply makes the eventual private power structure that arises more opaque and even less accountable, should the citizenry choose to rouse itself at some point. The Sipples have recourse in courts and councils right now. Remove civic power, and they wouldn't have that alternative, or a speed limit to attempt to enforce, or a means via which to try to enforce it other than personal confrontation.
They'll have to spend some time and attention getting a matter of social conflict resolved. But the truth is that this problem wouldn't magically go away in a Liberatarian fantasy world, and they'd have fewer tools to work with.
Tweet, tweet.
From the clues in the article clips (it would be great if someone could summarize the full ones) it seems that the family got a hold of the officer's email address and were sending him email. I have no idea how much or what was the topic of those emails, but I'm pretty sure the harassment claim stemmed from these emails and not from the original video taping.
... hoisted by his own petard possibly ...
As a private individual you can set up just about whatever kind of surveillance on your property that you like. The road is a public place and you are allowed to video tape in public places as well, so there should be no legal problem with doing what they did.
My main point is that it is obvious we don't have the full story from these news clips and all the people who are railing against this officer and his abuse of power are rushing to judgement. That being said, I'm still willing to bet the officer brought the suit because he was PO'ed about being reported to his superiors. People abuse the legal system this way all the time. The problem is that his suit has turned this minor incident into a big PR story and so the local government might be forced to take some kind of politically correct action against him for his speeding
However, in practice, the law is not "objective" in it's interpretation.
h tm
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.
After you follow the link take a moment to view the local news where a more recent story headlines the following information Kennesaw officer withdraws complaint against Sipples The Kennesaw officer who sought the arrest of a Bartow County couple in regard to them recording his vehicle with a camera and radar gun dropped his complaint Wednesday in Bartow magistrate court. (February 15, 2007 12:15 AM CST) Please put away your torches and brooms no shennanigans(SP?) here. Thanks for the article though
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
1. Buy a full inventory of ammo. 2. Hole up in an alley. 3. Type "bringiton" and watch your wanted level flash up to 6 stars. 4. Relieve angst against The Man by killing hundreds of fat cops. Oh wait, are we talking about real life here?
There is no government on a desert island.
But you might get visited by pirates.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
You fuck with the cops they fuck with you back. This is news?
No, it's not right, but it's not gonna change. 90+ percent of police departments in the world would respond at least as forcefully.
I didn't really need another reason to hate on cops. Fuckin' A cops suck ass wind.
Have you heard of democracy and the court system? Local communities get fed up with their high-handed police all the time. They sue the city, they campaign against the police chief (if it's an elected position), they put up opposition candidates to local elected officials. Local government elections aren't as sexy as national elections, but they have more real impact on your life. Take my little town, for instance. There's always someone upset at the sheriff or the mayor or a county commissioner or the school superintendent. There are always recall elections, new candidates for sheriff, lawsuits against the school, lawsuits against the city, reform candidates for mayor (our new mayor is the reform candidate, he won the last election), and write-in campaigns aimed against the county commission. This in a rural Kansas town of 1500, in a county of 5000 people. Got a problem with government? Fix it yourself, with a little help from your friends. That's the essence of democracy.
For proof, see original article.
Apparently you haven't read the original article. Since it wasn't an article, merely a sensationalist blurb to try to get you to buy the paper and read the article. There were no facts, no details. It's sensationalism, and that's all.
-dave
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
... and if we don't like the music that's being made available, the laws get changed due to the flawed conclusion that lower sales = more piracy.
Wait, bad example...
No, that's what the media is for. That is, media that isn't in bed with the government.
People just like me? Perhaps on a local level, and moreso in rural areas. On the federal level, all the positions of real power (those at the top who make, judge, and enforce laws) are decidedly unlike me and the majority of people under them. Have you looked at the backgrounds for most of the higher-ups recently? How many recent senators, representatives, or presidents can you name that ever in their life worked at a resteraunt or doing manual labor to put themselves through college? Most of these people were born with more to work with than the majority of the people under them will ever develop.
Joe Tax Auditor #100059242135 might be just like me, but those are cog positions. They have minimal power to make any far-reaching change. I suppose if you count every federal employee, then yes, the government is by and large made up of people like me. Face the facts, though: The ones that matter aren't.
Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
Overhearing random people throughout the day in their political polemical conversations is like a knife turning in my heart, reason being that 95% of the American population will never understand that what you stated above is a paradigm of stance.
As long as Americans allow themselves to be divided (Free/Slave, Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal) on issues of complete unimportance that serve maily as a smokescreen (Gay Marriage) the real enemy will never be discerned.
One thing I worry about far more than elected officials is falsified history being forced onto the vast majority of the children in this country. (everyone wants to blame the parents for not bringing their children up correctly, but this is in fact a misleading stance. the real reason kids are fucked up is that the parents aren't raising their children anymore, they let the state do it for 197+ days a year, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.)
Even in our very day the vast majority of the self proclaimed clerisy are clueless to the facts surrounding the history of the international bankers and the United States. So clueless that they would pelt you with tinfoil hat insinuations if you were to cite the facts regarding the Federal Reserves role in the Great Depression. But hey, don't blame them, they're too busy with the daily toils of life to do their own research on such matters. (after all, some of them studied this very topic in college.. too bad the materials they 'learned' from were chosen for them, not by them. ahh school. where you go to learn what to think, as opposed to how to think.)
is not the solution to move out of the area if the police can not serve you? or you can run for an elected position. otherwise you end up worried about the police and possible a target of theirs.
if you see me, smile and say hello.
wait, i thought cops were allowed to speed... kinda like how they can run red lights and stuff. since when do traffic violations apply to police cars? is this just an east-coast thing or do cops everywhere routinely exceed the speed limit whenever they please?
"i stand on the edge of destruction" -shai hulud
There's a difference between being charged, arrested, indicted, and convicted. The cop is going to press charges. That's not the same as getting cuffed for what they are doing. There will be some kind of investigation. They'll probably all get told to knock it off. These guys were running RADAR systems without clearance. Where did they get it? eBay? Homebuilt? Egads.
If a cop wants to speed, or run red lights, or get free donuts, or whatever, that's cool with me. What's the problem? Cops have a crappy job. They deal with junkies, they pull over wound-up soccer moms, they get shot at, etc. I don't know what they do - it's all stuff that they take care of so I don't have to. One of the perks they get is that they get to bend the laws just a little to let them relax.
Plus, cops are professional drivers. They are better than the average yokel, and thus they have a lower likelihood of getting into an accident. (You are not as good a driver as you think you are.) Plus, they have inside information. What's the accident rate along that stretch of road? The cops know.
(I agree with you - if I had a card that said, "Don't worry about my speed, officer," you bet I'd use it.)
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
I was confused by the stalking charge, as well. Read this article to see that officer was attempting to get the couple to stop emailing him, because they refused to meet with him privately about the emails. He has since stopped pursuit of the cessation of emails through the courts.
Wal-Mart will never fail, we live way too close to Soylent Green.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
...completely side with the owners of the property.
/flamesuit on
It is because of their tax dollars that policeman had a car to speed in at all. It is because of their tax dollars that policeman can feed his family.
We should get the service that WE pay for.
Living With a Nerd
In Soviet Union police officers catch you ... oh, wait ...
[Insert pithy quote here]
The whole reason he knows he won't get a ticket is because cops look out for each other before they look out for the people they're supposed to protect. Not sure what point you think you're making there...
You can use the "fourth estate" to take care of the problem, which is what this couple should have done. Trying to get the government to make a change by going to the same branch of government was recognized as a colossal waste of time a long time ago. (see J. Locke, J. Russeau, US Constitution, et al. for some evidence this was understood before this story was posted on Slashdot.)
for the lazy: They should have gone to the press. It makes the elected officials crazy, and they can make changes in the PD.
No it isn't, RTFA.
Check his poll numbers. He's got @37% support. If the Patriot Act is that oppressive/unpopular, surely a Democrat controlled congress can/should/will overturn it.
The opposite of progress is congress
Small detail : in the US, the capitalists control the government, as well as the sh^H^Hpeople; So, what is this anarcho-capitalism because it has obviously nothing to do with capitalism?
Wrong, in the US, the mercantilists control the government. Capitalists are only concerned with the mutual exchange of labor/currency for the mutual profit of both parties. Capitalists don't use the force of government to mandate THEIR way -- mercantilists do. Our bloodiest war in the US was founded on mercantilists principles, based on the mercantilist viewpoint of dictator Abraham Lincoln.
I never said that it's safer for cops to speed. I'm just trying to dispel this idea that all cops are on power trips. Maybe if you were give the oppurtunity, you would still follow the speed limit, even if you didn't have to. But I know many, many people who would speed to their hearts content if they could get away with it. Does it make them tyrannical? No.
My friend spends most of his time dealing with domestic disputes. Alot of families out there can't solve their problems with out using violence. When he arrives to the scene, he has try to calm these people down try to figure out what's going on. Instead of being cooperative, these people treat him like shit. I can't blame him when he proceeds to do background checks on all the people, when they start being dicks to him. He usually finds a warrant or two, and he takes those people to jail.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
Supposedly they also take extra driving courses dealing with high speed manuevers etc that "may" possibly make them slighty safer... YSMV.
I don't think you understand that the point isn't this specific officer, it's a government in which this kind of abuse is generally permissible.
In order to protect law enforcement, certainly.
Like when the original restrictions were allowed to sunset and we were assured by Millions of Moms that we'd be awash in ruthless killing machines. We have to do something to protect our kind hearted, well intentioned, peace loving peace officers, whether from violence thirsty lunatics with sandbagged machine gun nests or from speed gun toting stalker weirdo suburbanite couples. These people, hell bent on their vigilante campaigns against docile doe eyed public servants, have to be stopped.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Not much more detail, but it does include snippets of Georgia Stalking Law.
Wrong. Nice cops turn ruthless because they maintain the instinct of self-preservation.
I've never heard a francophone - is it anything like a sousaphone? ;)
On a serious note, I like to think that I live in a country with the best police force that money can buy.
We have a state government who will pay for the defence of any police officer hauled up by the state's own corruption investigator on corruption charges, and some very strong links between certain officers of the serious crimes unit and their opposite numbers on the other side of the law enforcement fence.
As for speed cameras - a LOT of them are run for the state by private concerns, but like you, we don't often hear of police officers being "blued" for speeding.
Will those of you who think that you know what you are doing, get out of the way of those of us who know what we are doi
So your friend got a free pass because he is a cop. This is the whole point of the argument. It doesn't matter if he's a nice guy or not. Where does it end? At what point do police officers become accountable for their actions?
"You think police offices are bad, you should see how post offices drive! They don't even care if its raining, sleeting or snowing!"
I'd think you'd have to watch out for those wide turns.
You are either speaking of a des-ert, a place with little rainfall, or you meant the verb de-sert, and your tense was wrong.
That said, I do agree with the general idea of your post.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
I'd like to offer you my take on this situation, from a classical anarchist perspective.
The police are there to protect your rights - more specifically your property rights. The more property rights you have, the more you can expect those to be protected by the police. The police chase "criminals" - mainly those who sell and consume drugs outside of the federal tax-levying scheme. If you are black, young, and the victim of some brutal crime in the less salubrious regions of Chicago or Pittsburgh - then you are (naturally) of no interest to the police.
Of course the police abuse their power. That is what power is for. That is why giving it up on the back of a vote card is the worst form of societal participation - even the ancient greeks demanded participation and power rotation in their verison of democracy. The police, the military, the judges, the lawmakers have been given an almost limitless amount of power to wield over you and I, who are merely expected to meekly pay for their excesses. As far as I can tell, niether Bush nor Clinton would have sent their children on a 12 month tour of duty in Baghdad. Hell, Bush was even too scared to walk from the Capitol to the Whitehouse on his coronation^H inthronation day.
We pay a gang of mercenaries - known collectively as the Law Enforcement Establishment - to defend our capital for us. For some of us, our capital equates directly with the shop-floor head count. As even Marx pointed out, the only way to make a profit is by creaming some of the profit from your employees' labor.
So friends, don't be disheartened when the police abuse their powers. Just remember that those are the same powers you proxied away to protect your own scrawny interests. Remember that when you see soldiers murdering civilians, policeman beating students and presidential motorcades which would have shamed the soviet leaderships of North Korea and the USSR. Those are your interests which are being protected, those are your tax dollars being spent, those policies were chosen because they are in yout best interest. Let's hope you wake up and smell the coffee.
The police are there to protect your interests. Your interests are in the subjugation of the rest of the world. Your interests are hinged on maintaing a strong dollar and low interest rates whilst raking up the highest levels of personal and communal debt the world has ever seen. Your interests are keeping your employer solvent, the boss rich, and your job secure. Your interests are the pork bellies, the corn fields, the humvees and the processors. Your interests are best served by a militarized police force who know how to effectively suppress dissent, preach conformism and behave as a model of conservative, capitalist values.
All you liberals, aks yourselves who really paid for your education. It wasn't your parents. More likely it was some South American or East Asian peasant.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Ben Franklin
The definition of stalking, IMHO does not apply to this
Many states have have speeding cameras
The dip shit got caught, the city is embarrassed, so they have to make a point
that only the Government (cough) can enforce laws
I just set a radar gun up on my road, the sheriffs office is glad I did.
They said it will only work if its on at random times. (set for 33 axles over the sensor).
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
and ironicly, not unlike the posts you are replying too.
meep
The way I RTFA, the arrest was for sending the e-mails, not for capturing the photo evidence of the officer speeding.... which I would have to agree is a pretty stupid thing to do. At least send it to the police department, city, country, newspaper, whatever.
Not sure if the results would have been different or better.
"You can surrender without a prayer, but never really pray without surrender" - NP
Tyrants? Let's talk facts... they were being ridiculous. 17mph? You gotta be kidding me, around here grandmas go 17mph over the speed limit. They clearly went too far. The appropriate step here is to report the problem to the police so they can post an officer on his down time to catch speeders.
Having come from a family of police officers, I know that the officer may well have been acting within police regulation. For many crimes, where stealth is a necessity, such as a burglary, police officers are asked to respond to the scene post-haste, but without lights and siren.
But really, even if he/she wasn't responding to a call - 17mph? Someone needs to tell these people to relax.
"In God we trust, all others we monitor." -- Unofficial NSA motto
Further evidence to support my theory that once a person becomes a police officer they also become a total douche bag.
I do...I'm pretty confident between my CB and my radar detector, and keeping my eyes open.
I only look at the speedometer when the detector goes off....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Everyone can stop complaining about cops going over the speed limit. Cops have to go over the speed limit to perform core functions of their job. So do fire trucks and ambulances. Luckily they're all trained to do so. If everyone went through the same training and certification process that cops do, we could all drive 17 mph faster than the current speed limits and the speed limits would all be higher, but we don't so we have to drive slower.
What the cop was doing was defined as not being against the law and is part of his job. Cops don't always put on their lights because they don't always want bad guys to know they're coming, but it doesn't mean they're not in a hurry. Did they also tape the gardener mowing the lawn and the mechanic fixing cars? Because that's also stalking.
Man I am sick of hearing all you cop haters with your one sided statements such as "They are not here to protect you, they are here to protect their jobs," or statements about them abusing they powers. Spending 5 years of my very early life as a police officer I have a very different and accurate opinion. Firstly, it's sick to hear the bashers with the statements after of risking my life to protect the public. Yes, I have had several near death incidents protecting you: almost got struck by cars on roadways trying to help people stranded on the freeways or while responding to motor vehicle collisions, got shots fired in my direction while a person was taken hostage, climbed down steep high cliffs to save the passengers of a car that had tumbled down onto a ledge, ran into a burning building to save elderly at a care home. That is not to mention the everyday things like scuffling with a disorderly person who is drunk or high on meth, or trying to arrest the irate spouse beater. Or how about all the non-injurious things I did that made a difference in someone's life? The countless talks I had with teens who ran away because they hated school or their parents or the ones I had with the depressed and suicidal patients I took in for mental observations. How about all those elementary schools I visited and did outreach with the students, trying to veer them away from drug use and try to give them self confidence. (For you who don't see drug use as a big deal, then you probably have never seen the effects of crystal methamphetamine). So to all your cop haters, maybe you should actually TALK to a cop and see what his job is really about, instead of just guessing within the comfort of your own home behind your computer screen, basing what you know about law enforcement from what you see in movies, cops, and from getting a ticket. It's always damned if you do, damned if you don't. Like that one buffoon who made a complaint because of the blue lights were bothering him. He complained about the cops doing their jobs protecting his neighborhood. So what do the cops do? Don't patrol his neighborhood? If you all could experience being a cop, then you would understand this dilemma! Moving on to the topic. I have a few key points to bring up. Was the cop on duty or was he off duty? If he was on duty, then there should be no issue. Why would an on duty cop who is traveling 17 miles over the speed limit be abusing his power? Take these following situations: 1) Cop is addressing this resident's complaint and sees someone speeding so chases after him. He has to speed in order to catch up to him and to pace him. Duh? 2) Cop has a call. Perhaps you are at home and someone is trying to break in. Now do you want him to follow the speed limit while the burglar is assaulting you? Perhaps the cop was off duty. Yes he should not speed, but the evidence presented by this resident should not be admissible. PERIOD. Why? Because evidence is held to a high standard, that it is highly unlikely this resident followed such standards. I would ask, what type/model/make of radar gun is he using and has it been accepted in court. Has the radar been serviced and correctly calibrated? Is there a time/date stamp mechanism and has that been properly calibrated? Has the image capture been properly calibrated with the radar? Has any official agency used this exact setup and has the operation been properly tested and documented. Were there any other cars in the area and did the camera pick up any other cars? Unlike laser, radar is wide dispersed, so there has to be some judgment on which car was actually traveling that speed. You would want this same type of checks and balances if YOU were to get a ticket from a cop. It's wrong to get a ticket for going 70 when you were only going 60 right? But the MAIN reason is that this citizen does not have any legal right to issue any type of traffic complaint. At most his complaint should be taken as a internal investigation. Finally most of you are making conclusions about the resident being prosecuted or looked at for stalking. Well after reading that VERY short article, there is not much you can conclude. There is probably a lot more to the story than you can infer from such a short article.
I couldn't agree more. Almost everyday I see Police doing something that is the opposite of protection. For example, to catch speeders, Officers often sit under an overpass, with their squad cars perpendicular to the road. Needless to say, there is not sufficient room for their vehicle, and cars need to swerve around them, begging for an accident. I've seen officers go the wrong way down a a one way road to stop someone for running a stop sign. And I personally have been frisked handcuffed and screamed at, then told to get back in my car and leave, without being told what I had done wrong.
I'm sure some police are great. But I'm also sure there are many that do anything but protect citizens.
The original story is reported in full here:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/10935892/detail.html
Also, it appears that the officer dropped the charges, although I've had no luck bringing up the link to the followup article.
I am not a crackpot.
There will come a time when eventually enough people will get fed up with how we are being treated and go back and follow the words of our own fore fathers:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
However, I think that that document will be ruled contraband long before that happens.
(a)(1) A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person.
lets see, I don't see embarrass the jerk...
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
Dada21, If you would post more, I would read this site more. The confused responses to your insane trolls are probably the only thing worth reading on Slashdot.
The following transpired when I got pulled over for speeding in Georgia...
Cop: Do you know how fast you were going?
Me: Fast enough to press charges against you for hiding behind that building with a radar gun, stalker! I'm going to have a restraining order placed against you! You'll be hearing from my lawyers for the emotional trauma incurred, you sicko!
Thats pretty amazing that an entire police office was traveling down their street at any speed, but 17mph over...wow
It seems officer Perrone changed his mind after a meeting with the magistrate.
What was once true, is no longer so
Suppose I come up to you in a place that you have every right to be, like a public library, or your front yard. I tell you to leave, and when you say no I beat you into a bloody pulp with a cricket bat.
You earned it -- all you had to do was get up an leave
Nice bleeding heart twist to the story, but unfortunately, he did not have every right to be there. If the rules state you must have your BruinCard on you when in the library at that hour, and you do not have your BruinCard on you when you are in the library at that hour, then you have no right to be there. Period.
I think we could all agree that the initial confrontation with this kid was questionable. I don't think a single news story or video has yet shown what exactly triggered the CSO to tase him the first time, and that is something that needs to be investigated. However, the subsequent tasings, when he was repeatedly told what he had to do in order to avoid them, are completely justified IMHO.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
And the idiots of this country still think Bush is doing a good job and the Patriot Act is a good thing as well.
Yeah, because the call for filing a complaint of stalking on these people came directly from Bush himself.
Get a grip.
I just can't wait for someone that you like to be put into office and have every single abuse of power or misjustice hung around their neck. Maybe on that day you'd understand why people like you are shrugged at and called idiots by the masses.
Well there's the rub - I have no dogma to offer you, no shining path which I want you to follow and none of that happy medium nonesense. All I offer you is your own rationality.
Power corrupts. Allowing power to concentrate is a bad idea. Power is expressed in the modern triumvirate of the state, capitalism and complicity. See the anarchist FAQ for more.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Ben Franklin
Cops are definately not cowards. You can say they abuse their powers at times, but I think it takes alot of balls to be dealing with criminals on a constant basis. I don't know if you ever been shot at before, but putting yourself in the line of fire is not a cowardly action. People always bitch and moan about cops screwing them over. The fact is that cops are saving people's lives every day, but once a cop is giving you a speeding ticket they instantly become the tyranny the rules over us all. I have even more respect for cops because of this.
My friend says most of his non-report writing time is spent on dealing with domestic disputes. He always tries to get both sides of the story, and tries to treat people with respect. He's told me many stories where he is treated like shit by the person who he is trying to help. Do you know what it feels like to be treated like shit, when you're only trying to help? If you are dick to a cop, don't be surprised when he is dick back. The difference is that he can actually screw you over. The golden rule can go a long way with dealing with cops.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
Sent from my desktop computer
Huh, so why doesn't it work then?
Even if a single person invested lots of money in all those chains, as soon as people stop eating there, all that investment will go down the drain.
Yours is hardly a conclusive argument.
A rich investor can only get richer (or even stay rich), by serving the needs of customers well. If a business turns a profit, this is to say, its outputs are worth more than its inputs to somebody, that indicates that what they do is a good thing. If the costs are higher than revenues on output, that means nobody wants to afford whatever they provide (such as food+service).
It's adapt (to *serve* customers), or die.
An answer to you and the post immediately below:
No physics don't change, training does.
A cop is better trained in tactical driving than the average citizen. You may be a good driver, but it is fairly improbable that you have the requisite training to make you safer at speeds higher than the average speed of traffic around you (which *should* be at the posted limit).
I don't condone that they would speed when off duty, and I think they should get a mark for it or some such, but as to why things are different, it's training.
I worked with a guy (he was head of security for my old employer). He was on a local road with steep ditches on either side for a rather long stretch (5 or 6 miles). It is a two lane road and there was ample on-coming traffic. A paramedic turned on their priority lights behind him (thus they were in a hurry and he was obligated to yield), but there was no safe way to get out of the way. His solution was to speed up to about 85/90Mph (50 speed limit) and pull over as soon as the road widened enough to allow so.
Well a cop heading the other direction flipped a U-turn and promptly caught up and pulled in behind him, citing him for: Failure to yield, reckless, speeding, evading (apparently the cop figured since his lights were on our guy was running, never mind he couldn't see them). Cop refused to listen to the explanation of no safe place to pull over.
Come court day bob told the judge what happened and that his was the only reasonable and prudent course of action. Judge asked what experience he had driving at high speeds. Reply? Pursuit instructor and EOD officer for HM Army and MI6 back home in England.
Result?
Case dismissed instantly.
It's all about training.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Google is the answer.
l e_faced_charges_for_busting_a_speeding_cop
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/117879/Coup
He withdrew the complaint.
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
This in a rural Kansas town of 1500, in a county of 5000 people. Got a problem with government? Fix it yourself, with a little help from your friends.
In the rural small-town Kansas that I know of... local government problems often indeed do get fixed by a group of "friends", and usually they're wielding baseball bats and shotguns to get their point across.
What kind of fucking idiot are you? Here, let me juxtapose this for you so you can appreciate the absurdity of what you just said -
Yay for sweeping generalizations!
....
My best friend is a police officer in Phoenix. He is truly a great guy. The whole reason why he wanted to be a police officer is because he wanted to help people. I believe him when he says it because he's done some crazy things like running out in traffic to render aid to really bad accident at an intersection. When he is off duty, he really is a friendly guy.
I went to visit him, and he drove me around when we went out. Even off duty, he drove like a speed demon. I asked him what happens if he got pulled over for speeding. He said he simply shows the cop his police identification, and the cop will let him go about his way. So there you have it, he speeds because he can, not because he is on some evil power trip. Would you speed if you know you wouldn't get a ticket? I sure would. Hell, I still speed regardless.
Please stop pinning cops as assholes on a power trip. Maybe some of them are that way because they never get any respect, even when they are trying to help.
Cops are pinned as assholes on a powertrip because of the kind of stupid shit your friend does. I don't give a damn if he's doing it "because he can" or because he's a "tyrant" - he's still an asshole for bending the rules for his own benefit (amusement or convenience or whatever). Cops are supposed to be upholders of the law. They are supposed to be damn close to above reproach. It's a tough position to fill, from a moral character standpoint, and the reputation cops have, especially local "city-of-bumfuck, iowa" cops, is entirely deserved when shenanigans like this are allowed to go on. If you don't have the chops to say "I have power, I could bend it for my own benefit, but that would be wrong", then get the fuck out. This job is not for you. Go be an accountant or something.
Just remember, if we force police to pull themselves over, we are forcing them to work against each other.
Um, no. We force them to have accountability with eachother. That whole "brotherhood" bit you see in the movies is good to a point, but not to the point where they should start looking the other way when the catch eachother breaking the law.
The instant cops feel like they're above the law is the instant they cease to be protectors and upholders, and become enemies of the people.
And that's your idea of "tyranny" is it? [rolls eyes]
Maybe you'd have a point if the cop had given you a tazing (which it sounds like you deserved), but really, such risible statements only serve to undermine what little sense there is in the rest of your screed
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
When I see this I am reminded of Lord Acton's epic warning that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Sadly, this admonishment is confirmed far more times than not...
Worst. Grammar. Pedant. Ever.
Desert Island
The only good traffic cop is off-duty, retired or dead.
Unfortunately, in Georgia, the "GBI" steps in for the "FBI" and they ((GBI) are most certainly corrupt. Georgia LE "bleeds blue" and there is no getting around it. Everyone in the LE system was born into it, married into it, or there is some other sort of bastardly connection.
Your nailed it right when you said "speed enforcement racket" because that is all it is. If the police were really out there to slow people down so less accidents happen, then they would:
a) have a very visible presence in traffic so that people could see that they are keeping tabs on it. Instead, they hide in the bushes so that drivers can't see them, and when people do see them they tend to slam on their breaks to slow down before they get checked. It can be argued that this causes way more accidents than speeding, but it is beside the point.
b) issue more points per violation on your license instead of a monetary fine. Don't you find it strange that the fines go up all the time, but the points you get per violation stay the same? If they wanted to slow people down, they'd start a "3 offenses and you get a suspended license" campaign.
Cops issue tickets to make money for the department, and thats the only reason. Case in point, in my home town during that midterm elections, we voted down giving the PD more funds to renovate their headquarters (the place is already pristine). The next day, they gave out a record number of speeding tickets.
I got nothin'
Cops are people.
There are good people and there are bad people.
Therefore, there are good cops and bad cops.
Nonsense argument.
Cats are animals.
There are furry animals and there are scaly reptilian animals.
Therefore, there are furry cats and scaly reptilian cats.
" he wanted some kind of court order to prevent them from continuing to email them"
Yeah, and he wanted an **arrest warrant** for them!!! He has since asked to drop the request for their arrest but the fact that he even asked for it is galling.
And if the RCMP is corrupt, it bounces back to the FBI I presume? Nex
You can run out of stores where you buy just like you run out of parties to vote on. Granted, there are fewer parties (especially in the US) than shops.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
> Even off duty, he drove like a speed demon. I asked him what
> happens if he got pulled over for speeding. He said he simply
> shows the cop his police identification, and the cop will let
> him go about his way. So there you have it, he speeds because
> he can, not because he is on some evil power trip.
But cops should lead by example. They shouldn't speed if their lights and sirens aren't on. When cops speed, they're saying "This particular law doesn't matter." Even when driving a civilian vehicle, everyone sees them and sees just one more person speeding. But they still give out bullshit tickets, like one I got for doing 48 MPH on a nearly-deserted, 3-lanes-each-way road that just so happens to have a 35 mph posted limit along a 2-mile segment. (The rest of the road is 45 mph or 50.) I don't know about Phoenix, but cops in Orlando zip in and out of traffic on I-4 and tailgate like mad. So yes, I would say very much that the problem is with the cops themselves.
And remember, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Just because you have one friend who is a good cop does not mean that the other poster has no point. It has been my experience, meeting many cops in a variety of circumstances*, that yes, many ARE power-tripping assholes.
* I must point out that most of my experience with police has NOT been when I was doing something wrong.
> Just remember, if we force police to pull themselves over,
> we are forcing them to work against each other.
Or maybe they could just NOT BREAK THE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE. Just a thought.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
It's sad that you presume that all of those organizations, through and through, are tyrants.
Because that is not the case. Anything you cite I'm sure will be annecdotal and far from evidence that as a whole those organizations are bad.
And it's kind of funny that so many of the annecdotes tend to involve citizens with a deep seeded opinion that the police are bad. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it seems to be the case quite often.
It's important to know the difference between not trusting authority and distrusting authority.
This is a post from someone who evidently does not have any kids.
And this post is from someone who doesn't want to watch their kids. Remember, it's up to the parents to make sure their kids follow the rules. Get off your ass and be a part of their lives. The world isn't your baby-sitter.
dada21: If someone's light-rays that bounce off their body enter your property, they are now YOUR property.
/imagine/ the possibilities for abuse - by individuals, that is - should such a property law be passed. "You stepped on my grass, so it's legal for me to eat you!"
/. arguments. Take a social/political issue and attempt to make a point by arguing it at a ludicruously inappropriate low level.
/. discussions like this....
3278:even I wouldn't go so far as to say that any light rays which enter my property now belong to me. Is this true of air, as well? I cannot
Oh my God.... yeah. Agree with him/her or not, Dada21 started off arguing things at an appropriate level for the issue at hand... then he lost it.
His comment above is a perfect example of a mentality that runs throughout a lot of
I think this is the geekish desire to win an argument by (supposedly) logical means, regardless of whether this logic is meaningful to the original intent and context of the point being discussed. It's verging on autistic, frankly. I could also invoke the out-of-touch, basement-dwelling Slashdotter stereotype that might explain why some people try to argue social issues in such abstract and ludicruous manners. Either way, it all smacks of silly intellectual masturbation dishonestly masquerading as serious discourse.
I should make clear again that this isn't solely a criticism of Dada21; it's a tendency that pops up time after time in
Anyway, if someone thinks that discussing this at the level of "light-rays bouncing" being "your property" or something, as opposed to "you shone the light onto my house" etc. is appropriate for a social issue then... anything goes, all the way down to considering people in terms of their constituent atoms.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
The taser exists to subdue dangerous of violent people who the police officer is unable to deal with without weapons. It does not exist for 6 officers to use it as a tool to coerce someone who is lying on the floor into standing up.
FGD 135
Canada is for throwing terror suspects in the hole for years with no trial and then possibly releasing them.
And you are a terrorist if you think local cops misbehave.
You're nothing; like me.
Suppose you try to enter a public library when it's closed to the public, and you refuse to leave when ordered to do so by the police who were called by library staff.
1) He didn't didn't "have every right to be" there.
2) You and I aren't the police. Like it or not, these are the guys entrusted by our municipal governments to enforce the law and keep the peace. In matters like trespassing, they have the authority to use force to remove a person.
3) Beating someone and tasing them are two very different things.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Yay for faulty logic!
Here are the facts:
Grandmothers are people.
There are male people and there are female people.
Therefore, there are male grandmothers and female grandmothers.
I'm not saying that you are incorrect on there being bad cops, but I would at least hope there is a greater ratio of good to bad for cops than for the general public.
Yeah? Well, FYI, it's been a month since the Dems took control of Congress and I haven't seen Pelosi and her ilk accomplish *anything* yet. So much for the five day work week... even after they took the first week off for their political partying and general back slapping. I see a lot of time wasted passing non-binding resolutions and still see the Patriot Act as law of the land. We've already had a quarter century of Bush and Clinton, and we're mad as hell and not gonna do a damn thing to change that.
Aren't we dealing here with people operating in an official capacity? This is thus not quite a private person - it's someone who has been observed in the execution of their duties and fail to present the example they're supposed to give.
The issue is that this was not an isolated event so questions ought to be asked at police HQ. If they're not asked (and it appears there was a problem) the question ought to escalate to higher up.
Taking these people to court actually means they're convicted for doing a mild citzens' arrest. That mess would take years to sort out..
Aside from the immobility of a Police Office, it wasn't actually the Georgia couple who brought it to the department's attention but the police officer himself.
Ok. Maybe it's partially about safety, but I couldn't fit anything else in the subject. And I'm not trying to say he should get to do it and you can't, but:
Partially it's about revenue generation, everywhere I've ever seen.
Partially it's part of a long list of things they can pull you over for to SEE if they think you're dangerous. They decide you were drunk or impaired or too stupid and you get the ticket or go to jail. You might still get the ticket for revenue generation, of course.
Partially speed limits are set low because people don't listen to rules, so we have mild penalties for minor infractions, so we have to have artificially low limits so we can say how ridiculously over they were when they are speeding. And suburbs have wider roads and less traffic but LOWER speed limits - for an alert driver these speed limits are ridiculous.
And partially, of course, you have to remember that we accept driver's licenses from any state and some state's ACTUAL (due to testing budget limitations) driving tests involve being able to drive around the block, once, without actually crashing. Even the other ones, we don't know how to test at all, and we pass all sorts of people who can't see, can't think, can't tell which pedal they're pushing or just can't drive. I think Gran Turismo would be an improvement!
So what's not safe for your worst-case driver is probably quite safe for someone who has been through cop-driving school and is alert and healthy.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
You have a friend who is truly a great guy and an asshole.
You say that cops shouldn't be able to break the law just because they are cops, but your post implies that you think it's okay for you to break the law because it was a 2 mile segment. Either way, you both are breaking the law. I'm not trying to say that this makes the cop right. I'm just trying to point out that everyone has their own ways of justifying their law-breaking. If you want cops to follow the laws better, than try to get policies implemented that punish them for breaking the law, because right now, there aren't that many.
Note: If a cop in Phoenix gets a DUI, he is instantly terminated. That is actaully a new policy for Phoenix PD's.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
To me the mistake they made was taking their evidence directly to the poliece department that was causing the problem. The poliece department's actions were largly to be expected. Very few people are willing to bust their friends and co-workers. Instead the couple should have taken the issue to an independent body with power to resolve the situation. An elected official, traffic violation reporting service which many states operate, or even the local media to generate some bad press. It may not have gotten them any further, but to me it seems like their odds would have been better.
If it's dead, you killed it.
I would consider that a power trip. There is a speed limit set in place and everyone is to obey that. Now when I go over it I get a ticket. When he goes over it he shows his badge and is let on his way... There is no exceptions either we all get ticketed or no one gets ticketed. Speed limits are there to help protect people who are either in other cars or walking. Some guy going 80 mph down main street is more likely to hit some one else than the guy going 25 mph.
hello
Yes, they are. You, I assume, are not a cop. Therefore, it is not your job to enforce the law. If I'm doing something that poses an immediate danger to you, you have the right to try to stop me using reasonable measures. Me driving seventy miles per hour in a sixty mile per hour zone is not inherently posing and immediate danger to you.
Under these circumstances, and any cop will tell you this if you ask them, your responsibility is at most limited to notifying the appropriate authorities. So if you want to take down my tag number or call the police and report me (after pulling off the side of the road to safely talk on your cell phone, of course), go right ahead. In fact, let me know how the police react when you take a list of tag numbers and matching speeds to the police office or call to inform them that a blue Oldsmobile is going seventy in a sixty.
But taking any action to stop me is dangerous, it's stupid, and it will get you in a hell of a lot more trouble than it will me if you cause a wreck while doing it.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr511392
This guys puts it all together better than I can:
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
I fought the law and the law won...
There is an entire community that exists to provide oversight to police departments. Each police department has its own oversight and audit members that handle internal affairs.
We complain (rightfully so) when they arrest kids for eating french fries on the metro, but then we turn around and apply a double-standard to the police. Let them do their jobs, let the oversight members do their jobs, and unless they start beating rodney king again, can't we just all get along?
Answer: The couple should just get a speed bump installed by the city. C'mon folks, it's not that hard!
Never pass a cop.
sometimes, nothing.
It is funny that you list one tyrannous group after another in order to try to "fix" the initial group -- the local police.
You know, I agree with you, but do you have a better idea? Even the most die-hard Libertarian isn't going to advocate dismantling the police -- because that's one of the few things that the Government should be doing, protecting the people from crime.
Perhaps all police departments could adopt the sheriff's model whereby the leadership of the department is elected by the people in the area that they serve? Would this provide some accountability over the police?
It's all well and good to rail against the status quo but we need to come up with a workable solution.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Here in Canada (or at least where I live) nobody is allowed to speed or go through a red light, citizen, police, fire or ambulance; the law applies to everyone.
...an anarcho-capitalist solution where there would be no speed limit and when these people felt threatened by others driving too fast, they'd just shoot them, problem solved?
My point of my OP, is to say cops speed because they can, not because they are assholes. Whether they are an asshole or not is still left in question.
Policies are going to have to get implemented if you want to see cops following the traffic laws without sirens. People aren't going to solve this problem by bitching about cops and calling them assholes.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
First thing you are taught in tactical driving is that while you can know your own thought processes and predict behavior based on that, you can't do that for any other vehicle on the road. Cop or not, you speed if there is a need to, not because you "can".
My uncle in Scotland got booked twice for speeding there. His occupation? "Police Advanced Driving Instructor Trainer". As in he taught the people who worked as advanced driving instructors for the police. He admitted that on one occasion he had no valid reason, but on the other there was a similar story to your friends. Neither circumstance nor title was grounds for dismissal of case, and indeed he faced disciplinary consequences. Arguably, he could almost definitely have avoided either ticket by flashing his badge, but he felt it morally inappropriate to do so.
By the time your detector goes off it's way too late.
Many detection systems are optical now, also (two photographs taken slightly apart).
I have seen this story in the local news. Both me and the ball-n-chain were rolling our eyes. The police officer was pissed because the couple kept on bugging his boss with their idiotic complaint.
The speed limit in front of their house is 25 mph, coming kinda downhill. I think, in the Atlanta area where nobody drives under 50, this is just plain dumb.
They were the typical overreacting freaky parents who were making a stink out of nothing because they are a couple of those people who love to have something to complain about.
"You are one naive fucking asshole. Why don't you tell all your idiotarian conspiracy theories to the families of the police officers who are killed in the line of duty? The idea that the government works against "regular" citizens is one of the most dangerous and destructive lies told by the so called freedom movement."
i on%5Carchive%5C200603%5CNAT20060329a.html
Um no lets try that again
People are getting tired of varius government agencys abuseing their power and killing or serouisly injureing people and getting a paid vacation for it. But as you sound like part of the problem you know that don't you?
http://www.elfie.org/~croaker/lamplugh.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNat
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20051028.htm
http://www.gainesnet.com/police.htm
Enough people have to be able to understand those big words, first.
There will come a time when eventually enough people will get fed up with how we are being treated ... and go back to drinking beer and watching NASCAR, because they've already forgotten what it was they were fed up with. The public schools they went to never taught them about their forefathers anyway, some dead guys apparently. Like, whatever. Ooh, a new Ford commercial!
There, I fixed your post for you.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
Um. I don't speed. Wanna know why?
1) It's illegal
2) It's dangerous.
Fuck you, asshole. You're the reason my fucking insurance is so fucking high. Asswipes like you who think you know better and plow through people minding their own business trying to turn left deserve to rot in a self-induced hell. Truly. You are a waste of protoplasm, you ass-sucking, self-aggrandizing moron.
I'll bet you vote againt gun control becasue it's ok to shoot whomever the fuck you feel like, because, after all, as long as you don't get fucking caught, who the fuck cares? It's all about what you get away with, right? Fuckface. You're the reason this planet sucks.
Shut the fuck up and go worship at the alter of Rove, you dimwit.
No, it's most emphatically not, at least in Georgia, and in most states as well.
Here's the code (your state may vary, but most states are very similar):
Note the reference to the "normal speed of traffic," not "the speed limit." Also, more specifically to these idiots who decide to be do-gooders and prevent people from passing them:
So if you (and by "you," I'm talking to the reader of this post, not the parent, who I think agrees with me) deliberately travel in a passing lane to impede traffic, you're breaking the law just as badly as anyone who might be speeding. (At least in Georgia; and as I said, most states have very similar laws.) So if you do it, stop being an idiot and doing something just as bad and dangerous as the people you're trying to stop.
Heh, I live in North Pole, Alaska. Our cops are the constant but of jokes and curses because they won't spend any time solving crimes, they just want to write tickets.
Recently, the weather warmed up and the intersections got particularly slippery. At one intersection in particular there is a down-hill slope before the stop sign. A local cop would sit in a parking lot off to the side and ticket car after car that slid through the intersection for failure to come to a complete stop. Now, was he trying to enforce or encourage public safety? I think not. If he was, he could have put flares out or done something else to make people aware of a potentially dangerous situation until a gravel-truck could have been dispatched. No. Instead he was gleefully writing tickets.
This particularly upsets me because I used to be a cop and saw this mentality a lot. There is a lot of pressure to write tickets for several reasons: First, of course is the income from the fines, but secondly, it's a lot easier to justify your time when you can point to all those traffic citations than to report that you acted as road-crew for 4 hours while waiting for a gravel truck. That being said, some cops are just pricks and get off on that sort of thing - not even thinking about the emotional and financial impact on someone who has a hard enough time keeping mandatory insurance on their vehicle who now has to pay a fine and higher rates for the next 3 years.
I wonder how these people can sleep at night sometimes..."terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
I'll mess this up, but I'm reminded of the joke about the old Soviet leader touring the gulags. Asks people what they're there for. They're all "innocent". None of them did anything. Except one guy up the back. "Why aren't you protesting your innocence?" "I did it." "Let this man go, before he corrupts the rest of them!" (or something)
It's all about training.
And why exactly does that justify breaking the law while not on duty? Hell, why does it justify breaking the law while on duty, unless they are being dispatched somewhere/involved in a pursuit?
I could make the argument that I'm a better driver then most but if I tried to use that argument to get out of a speeding ticket the judge would laugh at me while calculating my fine. Your friend had a good excuse but how does that relate to cops that speed for the hell of it?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
What you do on your property is no one's responsibility but yours. If someone's light-rays that bounce off their body enter your property, they are now YOUR property. Yes well in that case I authorize rape, murder, theft and drug dealing and that's ok because it's my property. And while I'm at it i'll change the laws of physics to ensure that light does not exit the confines of my property because it's my property so I am in charge of everything on it! It's unfortunate that certain people in public service employment abuse their power but it's not everyone your sweeping generalizations make you look rather foolish and paranoid. With everything regarding all laws, rules & regulations there are correct and proper procedures in place to maintain order and relatively smooth operating society. If you suspect someone is breaking the law alert the appropriate authorities. Your taxes pay for their jobs
The opposite side of the coin is not a libertarian, as some might think, but an anarcho-capitalist.
Anarcho-capitalism is just an extreme from of libertarianism.
And it's a load of crap for the same reason communism is: it assumes a unique driver for human behavior. In this case, self-interest (for communism it's altruism). From which you derive, obviously, that cops will not do their job. Never.
Last I heard, tho, there was quite a few people in jail, more often than not for a good reason (although one might question the duration). So obviously the system is kinda working. And best of all, there's actually 3 accepted ways to right a situation like this one: judicial - this hasn't gone to court yet -, political - vote him out, or the mayor, depending -, and social - public shaming *does* work, as do protest (ever heard of Gandhi, he liberated a whole *country*). So no need to fetch your gun and march on the police station, or shoot at speeders in front of your house just yet!
True story:
Back in my home town, some people from a neighborhood complained to my dad (the mayor) because cars on a road driving through were going too fast, and it was dangerous for the kids. And demanded that the cops do something. Fair enough. So he had a chat with them, and they posted a couple of guys with a radar. Guess what, they were right. Guess what, the speeders were all from said neighborhood.
They way you describe him, it sounds like he is on a definite power trip if he thinks it is OK for him to break the law whenever he wants just because he is a cop.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I have a few years of driving experience in Germany. In fact, I'm sure I've driven more miles in Germany than I have in the USA. I've quite possibly driven more miles at 100mph than I have at 60mph, but have no basis for that beyond my own estimations.
Does that mean since I have legitimate experience traveling at high speeds that it makes it safe(r) for me to drive 85 on the highway? I certainly think so, but the cop that pulls me over most likely won't agree, and I'll still get a speeding ticket.
I'd imagine there are exceptions for police in pursuit of a criminal and emergency ambulances.
e ssReleases/PressReleasesNotices/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4 084924&chk=vip3jh )
(interestingly here in the UK we have the police exception (very limited - police speeding off duty would get fine/points just like everyone else) but no ambulance exception.. (although it's not enforced for them since 2004: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Pr
The point that I'm trying to make is that, if you want cops to obey the law, simply calling them power tripping tryants and moaning about them not following the law isn't going to change anything. If you want things to change, you are going to have to create policies within the police department that punish cops for not following taffic laws.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
your story is exactly why i want 0 tolerance for any public servant, and treble penalties. the police should lead by example, not thru intimidation and fear. i also want to make government corruption, bribery, and incompetence capital crimes. government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. after a few years of executing the bad people, the concept of government corruption would all but disappear. breaking the law because you can should equal a quick kick off the police force. go guard a mall if you can't follow the laws you purport to enforce.
-=] M3 Heavy industries - Download Free Game Tools
as you appear to have missed this part of the same post: I don't condone that they would speed when off duty, and I think they should get a mark for it or some such
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
17mph in a 30 limit is over 50% over the limit, and and non-police driver would get a ban.
In a residential zone it's nearly double the limit and could result in a jail sentence.
They definately did *not* overeact.
Another method that is popular is to make all junctions staggered by just enough to make straight-line acceleration a pain. Or you could dispose of open junctions altogether and use roundabouts. Much better for normal driving than a two-way or four-way stop, and much less likely to be ignored, owing to the crash barrier in the middle of the road.
If offenses are genuinely as common as is being made out by the original couple, then have the local TV station do a human-interest story on it. It's doubtful these two have much community standing, and harassing those they "catch" is likely to help nobody in their area, but a TV crew recording fairly demonstrable, repeated dangerous driving would likely have generated a stir.
The only thing that will be stirred in this case is porridge.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Something not clear in the article was weather he was in a marked car or his own private car while off duty.
I am related to a police officer and he speeds pretty much all the time off duty and has been pulled over a few times and never gets a ticket. He just tells the officer he is a cop and that's it. He says that some show their badges as the officer walks up or somhow tell them that they are a cop. Basicly, the only way a cop is going to get a speeding ticket is if they blow through an automated speed camera (not sure if there are any in the USA) or if they are involved in a wreck of some sort where there speed is the cause.
Cops don't give other cops speeding tickets generally because they don't want to get speeding tickets either. Thats part of the reason for putting those thin blue line stickers on the back of their car(you know the back sticker with a blue line).
No matter where you go, there you are.
And if Canada is corrupt? Where do we go then?
I agree and disagree with you. They can be very brave with regard to criminals (possibly being killed) and then immediately turn around and be completely cowardly to a political threat (possibly "only" ending their career as a cop).
They get caught all the time covering up minor offenses by themselves and people with the right connections.
When the criminals get real power (ala mexico), the police back off. How does the old hack go-- "Cops got better things to do than get killed in Harlem". Same thing for many areas of New Orleans PRE Katrina.
They are peculiar heros, my nephew would put his life on the line to protect innocents from bad guys and then regale you with a tale about intimidating the same innocents himself. They do want to do good, but they are corrupted by the power given to them.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"Actually yes, it probably is somewhat more legitimate for a police officer to speed than the rest of us. In Indiana, state troopers at least must pass some fairly intensive driving classes to become a trooper"
Which is true. But why, then, will I still get the ticket if I, too, take a driver's training course? (And I could do so relatively easily, given I'm a member of a Volkswagen club and members can and do spread information about driving training offered by various organizations). But even if I have proof with me that I have undergone such training, I'll still get the ticket.
Besides, the law doesn't say "you must obey this law unless you are a police officer", it says "you must obey this law unless you are an emergency vehicle travelling under emergency rules".
So yes, the cop should be ticketed.
i am a soviet space shuttle
Driving fast because you're dealing with extreme circumstances (no safe place to pull over + ambulance in a hurry behind you) is quite different from driving fast all the time just because you know you can get away with it. No matter how good your training is, the results of mechanical failure at high speeds are catastrophic, and the longer you spend driving at high speeds, the more likely you are to get into a catastrophic crash, even if you're the greatest driver in the world. It's not legal for NASCAR drivers go 150 MPH in public just because they're highly trained.
Off-duty cops (heck, on-duty cops) who aren't in a particular hurry to get somewhere don't have any business driving excessively fast either. Sirens blaring, on your way to a crime scene? Go as fast as you like, we'll get out of your way. Patrolling, with no particular destination? Or just on your way somewhere for routine business? Go with the flow of traffic. I don't care how good your training is.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
"more specifically your property rights."
incorrect.
"The police, the military, the judges, the lawmakers have been given an almost limitless amount of power to wield over you and I,"
incorrect.
"Just remember that those are the same powers you proxied away to protect your own scrawny interests."
incorrect.
" More likely it was some South American or East Asian peasant."
I'm pretty sure there not taxed by the US.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And what, exactly, would you call doing something because you can get away with it if not a power trip?
I submit that acting like you're above the law because it has no consequences for you is the very definition of a power trip.
I'm tired of this bullshit, and frankly I'm tired of hearing about your pal the cop with a heart of freakin' gold.
Power corrupts. It has already started working its magic on your buddy, who thinks nothing of breaking one of the laws he is sworn to uphold. His selfish disregard of the speed limit might seem trivial to you - and maybe it is - but the fact remains that what he is doing is still criminal no matter how you try to rationalize it and he knows damn well that he'll never be punished.
At least when you or I choose to speed, we know we might get a ticket and can weigh that as part of our decision to abide by or ignore the law. He has no such restrictions.
How long until Officer Friendly decides to start ignoring some of the other laws on the books?
Or will that be OK since he's such a teddy-bear and no one is nice to him and blah, blah, blah?
Citizen's arrayest. .
</Gomer>
"If your parents never had children, chances are you wonât either." -Dick Cavett
As such, they should be held to the same standards as the rest of us.
No, actually as enforcers(and this goes for those who write the law also) of the law, they should pay a much higher price for violating it.
What?
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws." -Ayn Rand
-Jon
OK, so the pedants say a radar gun isn't admissible as evidence of speeding for the reasons given - BUT, you can't argue with a movie with a time stamp each frame.
Film offenders moving between two points. Take the start time, the end time, and simple math gives you average speed betwene two points. No need for a radar - and you have the film evidence which would be hard to fake.
This is the same technique cops use, with their "two strips on the road" sensors, which time the delay between impacts and calculate a speed from it. No radar detector can get out of that one. (But eagle eyes, and attentive driving will.)
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
"Don't be shocked as the tyrants find more ways to increase their power of tyranny. "
I'll probably be moderated down for this (burn karma burn) but after reading your rant (which I agree with) and reading about this cop killer who calls himself a 'chaotic patriot', I'm beginning to see why he calls himself that. Not saying what he did was right but what are we suppose to do? I can see how someone would believe they have no choice.
Why do tyrannts abuse their power?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
That said, police are trained to drive in their police car with lights and siren and such, not their stock personal car with none of those items.
No matter where you go, there you are.
Well, if you think doing a background check is against the law, then you know pretty much nothing about the legal system here.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
Heh, I live in North Pole, Alaska. Our cops are the constant but of jokes and curses because they won't spend any time solving crimes, they just want to write tickets.
Does North Pole, Alaska, have a lot of crimes that are going unsolved?
I used to be a Finance Director or a city in Oklahoma. I was on the management side of the union negotiations between the city and the police union. The police negotiator (a sgt.) got pissed about the city being hard nosed in the negotiations. He then proceded to follow me and various other negotiating team members trying to find something wrong to write a ticket for. He eventually got reprimanded for that.
You do not go to the person who did the dirty deed, you go to the head of the department. If you do not get satisfaction, you go to the elected official. If you do not get satisfaction, you go to the local newspaper or in a large town the TV station.
Step 2: Move to Montana?
> So there you have it, he speeds because he can, not
> because he is on some evil power trip.
He was showing off, and proving to one of bis buddies that yes, he can get away with speeding. He was demonstrating his power to evade the reach of common laws.
> Would you speed if you know you wouldn't get a ticket?
No, not intentionally. Among other reasons, it's a waste of fuel. And I wouldn't put a friend's life in danger just to satisfy my urge to show what I could get away with. Your cop friend is irresponsible and dangerous to you and the general public.
'zomg-free-markets-demand-zero-regulatio-democracy -is-a-sham-governments-only-exist-to-tyranize-thei r-populace-we-need-to-switch-to-pure-contract-law- nownownow!!1!'
Feh.
~!J!
he speeds because he can, not because he is on some evil power trip.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that that might be the very definition of a "power trip". He gets away with speeding because, as a cop, he has the power to do so. Where does this stop, then? If he gets caught driving while intoxicated, would his crime be similarly dismissed? What if he was caught shoplifting? What if he assaulted someone while off-duty? What if he killed someone, and, as an officer of the law, was in a position to taint or destroy any evidence that could link him to the case? Wouldn't any of these be a matter of him doing thing X because he can?
I'm glad that your friend is a great guy, but it stands that "being a great guy" and "abusing power" are not mutually exclusive.
A cop is better trained in tactical driving than the average citizen. You may be a good driver, but it is fairly improbable that you have the requisite training to make you safer at speeds higher than the average speed of traffic around you (which *should* be at the posted limit).
So, since I learned to drive on race tracks when I was twelve, have raced hundreds of different cars since, taken stunt driving classes *and* classes normally reserved for police officers -- and was taught to drive by police officers in the first place -- I should be able to accurately assess when it's OK to exceed the speed limit, right?
Wrong. I get no special concession for my driving training and neither should cops.
Of course, I'm willing to alter my POV if I get a "get out of a ticket free" card...
... that those in power never want the public looking over their shoulders?
Oddly enough, I find that most companies that I do business with serve me very well and quite courteously. The biggest motivation for them is the simple fact that I can choose another company if I am not satisfied with their services. When this motivation is taken away by virtue of a monopoly or near-monopoly, the service becomes much worse. The closer to a pure monopoly, in fact, the worse the service. The problem with the government as an exclusive service provider is that it instantly becomes a monopoly, and therefor has no direct incentive to provide better service. Voting can mitigate this somewhat, but because there is no direct competition, the government can never "lose business" no matter how appalling the service or the product.
A critical of government, IMO, is to be a watchdog over the corporations (ala Enron), as simply losing a job or going out of business is not sufficient deterrant or punishment for some crimes or infractions. And, there are some situations where a company's policies could have potentially devastating results for an individual, and so need regulation (banking, insurance, health care). But we really get into trouble when the government tries to start running the whole show.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Police officers are human, and as such, can be both good and bad. Unfortunately there are a couple of reasons why officers are likely to be more bad then good.
Of course, if an officer knows you (like your friend) they will treat you great. The problem is when you're a stranger.
Training my ass. I spend some of my free time racing cars, doing autocross, and have been through driving courses that a I dare-say makes the average cops' driving training pale by comparison. Should I be allowed to speed? Heck, we an institutionalize it - take some courses, and speed all you want!
What you (and these cops apparently) fail to understand is that no matter how good you are, there are 10,000 other assholes out there that can't drive worth a shit, not to mention kids, unforeseen road problems, etc. Some of these cannot be avoided, and the only way to mitigate damage is to slow the fuck down.
Out in the middle of nowhere with no one to kill but yourself, sure speed. In town with other traffic or in a residential area - you better have a damn good reason to be hauling ass. And one of those reasons isn't that you're an off-duty cop. There's a reason that cop cars and emergency vehicles have lights and sirens. It's to help ensure that people get out of the way. Speeding without those running is especially reckless. Again - you better have a damn good reason.
I for one, welcome our new hypocritical, speeding, scaly reptilian cat overlords!
He was on a local road with steep ditches on either side for a rather long stretch (5 or 6 miles). It is a two lane road and there was ample on-coming traffic. A paramedic turned on their priority lights behind him (thus they were in a hurry and he was obligated to yield), but there was no safe way to get out of the way. His solution was to speed up to about 85/90Mph (50 speed limit) and pull over as soon as the road widened enough to allow so.
He was obligated to yield only if it was safe to do so. Driving at 85-90 mph in a 50 zone is extremely dangerous, especially if you only have 1 lane, no shoulder, and lots of oncoming traffic. If he rear-ended a car going at 50 mph he would be judged at fault.
In many jurisdictions, paramedics are instructed not to drive that fast, because it is much more likely to cause a crash, injuring many people in addition to whoever is in the back of the ambulance, not to mention exposing themselves and their employers to liability.
Thankfully, there's always the media to over-do just about any situation... which is what it sounds like happened here.
Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
Power corrupts. It has already started working its magic on your buddy, who thinks nothing of breaking one of the laws he is sworn to uphold
Yeah, like speed laws get respect from other people.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Elephants are a subset of animals.
Since the set of animals could contain both animals with hundreds of eyes and necrophag animals, an elephant could be an animal with hundreds of eyes and a scavenging animal.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Just like in the times of cavemen.
How is it that these civil servants are always attempting to place themselves above the law? Ultimately, that's what this boils down to. If they, instead, attempted to fight the charges based on the merit of their evidence, I'd guess they'd have a pretty good chance at winning and they wouldn't run the risk of appearing to be these arrogant, above-the-law, a-holes that they appear to be at the moment.
To create a charge of "stalking" when the equipment used is on their own property and targeting "public areas" without being specific to individuals in question, I can't imagine how they expect to make stalking charges stick.
Still, regardless of how ridiculous the charges they face are, they are facing charges and they now need to employ an attorney to defend themselves. It's an expense I can't imagine they will be successful in recovering... this is going to be rather long and drawn-out for them. I feel for their plight. After all, if you sit back and do nothing, you have yourself to blame. If you do something about it you make yourself vulnerable to exactly this sort of retaliation.
That when police officers are involved in a car accident on duty, it goes on their driving record and their personal car insurance rates go way up.
Considering that they drive more miles than most drivers, its kinda unfortunate.
The cop did.
cop drops complaint
Wow. Yeah that totally helps. So when he hits a pedestrian crossing the street or a car pulling out of driveway, (this was a RESIDENTIAL AREA), then he can whip out his past credentials and explain to them why he had the right to speed. Especially if he had no reason to other than to get somewhere quickly.
The case you mentioned is different in that he had no other choice. (there was no shoulder). The speeding cop was in a residential area. unless his sirens were on, it was most likely not official business.
In Troy, NY an off duty cop who was intoxicated drove his car into my friend's garage at 3 am. He left the car while it lit on fire and continued to burn the place down. Now I'm sure his "official" training really helped him there. He drove drunk because he could right? I'm sorry but your argument is completely fallacious. IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT DO, BUT WHAT IS BENEFICIAL OR NOT. if society only functioned on what you could or could not get away with, you would have complete anarchy, because the police would not be able to catch everyone. End of Story.
That's part of the job and he probably knew that before ever wanted to be a cop. Does that mean that just because he picks up brains from the ground that he should be allowed to speed or break some other laws? What about a mortician, they must see some nasty stuff but it's not like they are exempt from speeding tickets.
This only works if the police don't kill you. I had a similar problem where the city I lived in thought it was a good idea to dump freeway traffic on one side of a residential neighborhood, and pick it back up on the other. They didn't want to build the freeway in the land that was already owned and waiting for the freeway. I personally witnessed over 150 car crashes in just the one city block in front of my house. A few pedestrians a year would get run down, and the police would tell anyone that called them about hit and runs in our neighbor hood that those were civil matters, so they would refuse to even take a report.
When my wife and I started raising a stink, and making public statements about the situation. Started taking photos, and logging traffic speeds... I received a phone call from the police department telling me "Your just trying to make trouble.", "You better drop this. We know who you are." Now, there are some who might claim that this was not a threat of violence, but I think most sane people would take it as a very real threat.
Rodney King kicked and otherwise assaulted police officers that night. That doesn't make it okay for thirty cops to stand around kicking him when he's down, but it's essential context to their behavior.
That kid in the library did something similar. before refusing to comply with reasonable orders ("leave the library, you aren't allowed to be here"), he physically resisted the officer who tried to physically remove him. With that context, the officers' actions become fairly reasonable. A better solution would be to cuff the kid and drag him out of the library by his feet, but I imagine the officers were trained to taze anyone resisting them, not to do the cuff-and-drag.
In other incidents, more than in those two, police have certainly been abusive dicks.
>I asked him what happens if he got pulled over for speeding. He said he simply shows the cop his police identification, and the cop will let him go about his way. So there you have it, he speeds because he can, not because he is on some evil power trip.
My hometown police department strictly forbids its officers to mention their job if they get pulled over. They recognize that there's a slippery slope once people start thinking themselves above the law.
You, too, can have an ethical police department. Elect a mayor who will insist on it. Elect a police chief who will enforce hiring standards. My hometown department once interviewed an officer from LA. He didn't get the job and the interview was short.
Get some professional pride going, run new recruits through a strong field training program, and you've got a self-perpetuating ethical culture.
The British Army is the Army. Nobody calls it HM Army. There's the Royal Navy, the Army, and the Royal Air Force. It would be seriously inappropriate for anyone to reveal an MI6 affiliation for anything as trivial as a traffic offence. I'm sceptical. Can you tell?
And why exactly does that justify breaking the law while not on duty?
He didn't break any laws - the ambulance had its lights on, there was nowhere to turn out of the way, and so the safest thing to do was drive fast.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Demonstrate "arrogant and dismissive lackey" for me.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
I hope by posting, it doesn't start all over with again, but if you stick with it long enough you can get them to stop harassing you. I have two seperate acounts that both resulted in officer losing their job, getting unpaid vacations and one of them went to prison on unrelated charged that were discovered durring my investigation.
So, Yea, If you end up on the recieving end of the stick, Give them one chance to calm down. Sometimes these bullies just need to feel like they are in control and having one up on you lets them make this claim to themselves. If that doesn't happen and they constantly mess with you or you end up getting cited for something you didn't do, Make a case out of it. The cops do end up corrupt like this but they can be delt with. The key is not to lose your control and give them stuff to work with. Don't do anything that gives them an excuse to screw you were they would otherwise have to make something up.
On another note, I have been contacted by the same police department to help them in certain ways since this has happened. It is like a few bad apples were spoiling the bunch and that bunch is now gone. I don't hold anything against the law enforcment officials themselves, I know it was certain people who had a problem not the entire system (even though they used the entire system).
And tag the parent's post as:
"A cop is better trained in tactical driving than the average citizen."
By that reasoning, taxi drivers should be exempt from the speed limit too, since they drive better at speed than cops do.
Doesn't help all the people who got killed by speeding police cars though, does it?
In general, Cops are asshats. I don't think they start off that way, but constant association with the worst of society warps their views. Doesn't make them originally bad people, but they turn into bad people. All my evidence is anecdotal, but is first hand experience. This coming from a middle aged, married guy making low 6 figures w/ a kid.
This is a slippery legal slope for the authorities to take. If the couple is guilty of 'stalking', then aren't cops when they film others from their mounted car cams? They should think through this before using 'stalking' as their excuse. I could see a lot of criminals using this new offense as a way to get off convictions based on what the car-cam captured - or at least countersuits alleging police 'stalking'
Here is one police officer that did not find himself above the law. He wrote himself a ticket for passing a stopped school bus!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12784367?GT1=9033
BTW, I think your post is way too cynical. There are many excellent police officers out there, doing great work. Sure, there are idiots, power-freeks, and other malcontents, but your broad-brush approach is way off-base. Sorry to hear you feel that way.
The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
IMnsHO, any judge that doesn't toss this case immediately needs to be impeached. And if the Chief of Police doesn't at least suspend this officer for a month w/o pay, that chief needs to be tossed as well. Where's the media in this? Where's Bill O'Reilly? 60 Minutes? Frontline? This is insane!!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
they dont have to serve the customer well, they just have to adequately serve the customer as cheaply as possible, they may lose a couple customers, but they make up for it in lower overhead.
and it depends how u define good, look toward wallmart and its ilk, to see how something can output value, while not being a good thing. economically, morally and quality of life wise, for anyone but the owners.
I don't speed. In fact I often drive a bit below the speed limit on highways to save GAS. :)
Most highyway patrol I see go whooshing past me pretty damn fast on the highway. Maybe its
because they can. Maybe its because they are in an emergency and can't have their lights / sirens on.
I really don't know which it is but they should follow the same rules as all of us if they
aren't responding to something or chasing someone.
-- If there's one thing i can't stand, it's intolerance!
If anyone didn't know or hasn't comment on this already, there is a very good reason why some Police Officers speed. There are certain codes (I can't give examples) that are issued that does not allow the officer to turn on his lights and act like there is an emergency because it is not documented so. Officers will speed to get to the scene quicker since they are not allowed to turn on their lights. Just remember there are good reason for Officers to speed. That doesn't mean I agree with punishing citizens for trying to report speeders.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Or maybe someone needs to tell this cop to slow down. He isn't a god, with infinite powers to flaunt the laws he's supposed to respect. I'm sure if the cop had been attending a call, telling the folks that would have shut them up. It seems pretty clear he's just speeding, and like the rest of us, got busted doing it. Unlike the rest of us, he has some power, and he abused it, and now he looks like the fucking jerk that he is. Guess what's happened to the respect for this cop? It's down the tubes. He's done a disservice to his badge.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
OR the six O'clock news with a stroy about how the country/city is paying more in fuel costs because some officials have a lead foot and belive they are above the same laws they cite other for.
I remeber back in the 70's where the news in my area were complaining about the cops doing "jack rabbit starts" were apearently the claim was they always took off pealing tires which cost extra fuel costs. I think they said if they took off normaly and gradualy accelorated it would save the state 15% of the fuel costs because it was so bad.
Does it make them tyrannical? No.
Of course not. It's understandable human nature. However, that doesn't make it right or acceptable. The speed limit is the same for cops, racecar drivers, and my grandma. The public has little enough respect for the speed limit as it is. Cops showing the public how little THEY respect the speed limit certainly isn't going to improve the situation.
Any amount of the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude is likely to come back in the form of resentment. The speeder who would have been annoyed but (just) polite becomes just plain surley or abusive. They don't know for sure that the cop who pulled them over ignores the speed limit, but they've seen enough do it that they are sure to generalize. That is also human nature.
If the police serve me badly, what can I do?
Go to the appropriate elected official, complain, and if they don't do something, go campaign full-bore for their next opponent.
We live in a democracy, and there isn't one single person (including me) who works for the government who can't be held to account by an election.
(In NY, the local police are headed by either a directly elected sheriff, a directly-elected police chief, or a appointed-by-the-mayor police chief.)
Oh, and if by "server you badly" you mean that they actually harassed you, caused you unreasonable discomfort, or actually abused their authority, well, that's why we have lawyers.
Well, when I had 2 brand new mountain bikes stolen off my deck (~$1,200.00 worth) they wouldn't even talk to me. When I called to complain about snowmobilers drag racing at breakneck speeds across my lawn and even told them who the kids were, they didn't want to hear about it (When the kids did it to my neighbor the next weekend -- he ran them down on his own sled, took their keys and made their parents go to court to get them back). I can point to at least 3 houses that my kids claim are producing or distributing meth. My son says he could buy pot any time he wanted - he says "everyone knows who to get it from". My neighbor (two houses down) has a habit of drinking too much and "target practicing" in his back yard (contrary to local ordinances about discharging firearms in our neighborhood) - cops don't want to hear about it.
This is contrasted with my wife's friend who was speeding (admittedly) and had the misfortune of being caught simultaneously by on oncoming cop and a cop lying in wait. They *both* wrote him separate tickets at the same time for the same offense (even comparing notes on speeds while standing behind his vehicle). Fortunately, the judge threw one of the tickets out, but you've got to be one stupid, arrogant prick of a cop to think that it's all right to write two tickets for the same offense. It just goes to show that they are more interested in revenue than protecting the public.
But, to answer your question, no, we don't have much crime here - but then we don't need so many cops on the payroll either then."terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
> It is funny that you list one tyrannous group after another in order to try to "fix" the initial group
:-)
Yeah, those tyrannous Canadians! Man, they really tick me off...
That was the theory behind appointing and not electing the supreme court justices. Unfortunatly, They were appointed by elected officials and have to state they will rule according the the popular opinion before they are confirmed.
But country judges are often elected so they are in a position to directly feel the pain. Especialy in a situation like this were the basis for the stalking case comes from the cop doing something illegal. If nothing else, He could bring the cop on charges (speeding ticket) and let him know he wasn't imune to the law.
For about a year, I had an Eaton VORAD radar pointed out my window at an intersection. This is usually used as an anti-collision device for heavy trucks, and we had one on our DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle. So, for debugging, I had one pointed at the street, hooked up to a PC running QNX.
A VORAD is a real phased-array radar; you get bearing, range, and range rate, separately for multiple targets. The software took this in and produced a track on screen. I could watch cars making turns. With all that info, I could see speeding and dumb driving in any direction. Never did much with the data, though, other than use it for debugging the robot software.
The VORAD only has a 15 degree scan width, and a very narrow beam vertically. So it couldn't cover the whole intersection. The VORAD is ten year old technology. A more modern unit would be more interesting.
Ouch, you hit the nail on the head. I am disturbed by what you seem to be implying though. I got from what you said 'Resistance is futile, roll over or run.' How can we effect change if we cannot put fear aside? Corrupt systems will destroy the first whistle-blower and the second and the third. Does that mean they/we shouldn't stand up? No.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Well, maybe they do. I've never seen anyone drive worse than cops: driving through red on a 10-lane intersection, tailgating really freakin' close(I think they do this to see if you'll get nervous about a car on your bumper and speed up just a notch), weaving, speeding > 25 over (all w/o the lights...)
Yet I have not seen a single accident as a result of their irresponsible behavior.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
A friend of my is an engineer, and test drives automobiles at high speeds (as well as testing vehicle handling on ice, etc.). He has extensive training, probably more so than your average cop. How far do you think he would get if when he speeds he said "Oh, I have training!".
Does this mean we could all end up suing the police for our traffic infringments if they get charged?
And you didn't start taping and logging these calls because...?
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Have you ever heard of limited government? Any government, even a democratic one, will tend to grow to suit its own needs. (People discover they can vote themselves money out of the public treasury, and then vote to rob their richer neighbors so the public treasury has more money for them. This is merely one illustration.) The founders of the U.S. understood this, and wrote a Constitution that (in theory) strictly limited the government's powers.
Constitutionally Correct
It is funny that you list one tyrannous group after another in order to try to "fix" the initial group -- the local police
Humor was my intent. The mods were spot-on with their ratings.
I wouldn't characterize all these groups as tyranous. They are made up of human beings, and thus they do good and evil. Now, if you want to get serious, of course this path of escalation could fail all the way. In particular it would fail quite badly if we ever had a true "one-world government". Black-helicopter conspiracy aside, that alone is reason enough to oppose such "global unity".
Your solution sounds great, but how often would any of us take the risk to tattle on them?
How often would people risk fighting the government? It depends on the stakes. Of course it is difficult. The fight for liberty is always difficult. The fight for liberty is ongoing. You can't just have a revolution like we did over 200 years ago, and say "done". Liberty has to be guarded, and when it's stolen it has to be taken back.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
What inherently makes the motivation of a government worker more pure and noble than a private employee?
I'm not sure how the words "pretend to care" and "thin veneer of accountability" implied "pure and noble" to you, but they were not intended to.
The biggest motivation for them is the simple fact that I can choose another company if I am not satisfied with their services. When this motivation is taken away by virtue of a monopoly or near-monopoly, the service becomes much worse. The closer to a pure monopoly, in fact, the worse the service. The problem with the government as an exclusive service provider is that it instantly becomes a monopoly, and therefor has no direct incentive to provide better service. Voting can mitigate this somewhat, but because there is no direct competition, the government can never "lose business" no matter how appalling the service or the product.
There are plenty of natural monopolies that result in the same thing. For example in Libertarian Crazy Land, your corporate-owned neighborhood would have its own corporate-run security forces and corporate-run justice system. How are you going to have competition? The choice of law enforcement company is not one you can make; you can only do so by moving, just like now. The government can't "lose business", but neither would this law enforcement company, in so much as in both cases people moving away due to poor security would mean less tax revenue/corporate rent income. However in the democratic version, you could also vote out the sheriff/commissioner/mayor or whatever level of elected official is there, so they at least have a motivation to keep the appearance of good service.
That's what my point is -- Our current situation has many problems, but democratic government adds a few advantages to the system as far as accountability goes. The proposed solution keeps all the problems, and eliminates the few advantages.
But we really get into trouble when the government tries to start running the whole show.
A perfectly reasonable statement. The next step into Libertarian Crazy Land would be to say that the government should be running none of the show, and therefore doing a s/government/private enterprise/g on the country would fix everything.
The enemies of Democracy are
As usual, the summary left out the important part - the stalking charges come from the fact that the people involved kept bugging the police man via email to own up to his speeding, not as a way for the police to get them back.
This is probably the best comment I've read this whole article.
People complain about the situation and that you can't do anything about it. There's nothing stopping you from becoming a police officer or a public official. All it takes is some hard work and if you want things changed you can make it happen yourself (voting isn't the only thing you can do).
After all the government is run by people like you and me. Where do you think politicians and police officers come from?
A few friends of mine have become police officers after serving in the military and I feel safe knowing these good people are out there to "protect and serve".
The charge of stalking, clearly a bully movie by the hypocrite cop. I hope the judge has the good sense of dismissing this nonsense. The home owners had every right to install cameras on their own property. The cop had no expectation of privacy whilst in public. By the same logic, the Rodney King video could have been considered "stalking".
FAQs are evil.
I think the "breaking the law" part was clearly about the whole "speeding because he can" part. So, stop with the weak deflection.
I believe the point (or should be), that your friend may have to put up with a lot, and have stressful days, but does that entitle him to intentionally break laws that are in place to protect the motorists and pedestrians from harm, and to reduce the harm inflicted when there is an accident?
;-)
The mere fact that he has pointed out to you that there is no repercussion for speeding from his fellow officers should be an indication that he believes he is above the law. Maybe not all laws, but at least the ones pertaining to motor vehicle speed limits, etc. And maybe that's how it all starts - with the "inconvenient" laws being disregarded because they don't apply to him or his coworkers. Maybe not - Maybe your friend is so pure that he won't assume to be more and more above the law. Then again, if he were so pure, he wouldn't breaking these laws, would he?
Also, you say that on a daily basis he deals with bad people that in turn call him a bad person, and he has seen in the past many atrocious things, but there are many other people in the world that see just as many terrible things (soldiers, nurses, medical doctors, firefighters, etc) - does that entitle them to speed when they're off duty, or even worse? I don't think so, and most normal people wouldn't think they are exempt either.
If nothing else, police officers should be even more responsible for their actions, since they are supposed to be setting an example for everyone else, whether on or off duty. And if they do slip up (and everyone does!), they should own up to the fact that while off duty, in a non-emergency situation, they are just like everyone else, and responsible for their actions.
Maybe you should re-evaluate your friend and his motivations. Maybe you could approach him and point out to him that although he can avoid speeding tickets, if he ever gets in to an accident, and hurts anyone, or worse, kills someone while speeding, he is not going to get a "walk" for it.
See, this is why I'm for a graduated licensing program: Graduated not in the sense of "You get your license at 17 but have to drive with an adult until your 18" but in the sense of "If you've had X hours of certified training, you are entitled to a certain symbol on your license plate, drivers license, and registration that confirm that you are allowed to drive Y miles an hour over the posted speed limits." I think this would be a fantastic way to make sure that people who want to get places quickly and are the sort of people that should be trusted with operating a vehicle at a higher speed than normal can do so without the hassles of a radar detector, etc. And yes, there are other people on the road, but that's what evasive/defensive driving training and discretionary training are for (both included in the first official advanced licensing bracket training.)
Really, I'd rather just abolish the stupid things and hold people who fuck up responsible for their actions, but I think this progam has more current society appeal.
How many recent senators, representatives, or presidents can you name that ever in their life worked at a resteraunt or doing manual labor to put themselves through college?
Bill clinton comes to mind. Of course, everybody seems to hate him - son of a travelling salesman who died before his birth, born to no legacy in particular.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
You think you have it bad, I live in Detroit (in the 'burbs, but I frequent the actual city on a daily basis), and the cops couldn't care less about solving crimes here. My friend who does live in the city had her car stolen out from in front of her apartment. When she went down to the police station they laughed at her because she was so upset. They told her that she should expect to have at least one car stolen while living in the city. If there were more patrols, this might not even have happened in the first place.
I got nothin'
Dumb-assed anti-gunners. I tore up my NRA card many years ago (quit hounding your paying members for more money, thereby squandering it all on postage!), but I may have to send them a few bucks after reading this.
Method of processing duck feet
Like most bullies, they are abject cowards when it comes to people with real power (and rightfully so since the cops get the same treatment when they try to enforce real rules on people in power)
No one made a huge generalization about cops being cowards, especially in the face of gun-wielding crooks. Please don't expand someone's narrowly specific argument into a wide generalization. I'm not saying he's right, but if you're going to argue against it, argue against what he said, not something nobody said. It just turns into a passive type of FUD (at least I hope it was passive).
Because it's probably illegal, unless you inform the other party that they are being recorded.
"But it's the lack of respect from people like you that turn cops into corrupt assholes."
Justification something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary; "he considered misrule a justification for revolution"
a statement in explanation of some action or belief
the act of defending or explaining or making excuses for by reasoning; "the justification of barbarous means by holy ends"- H.J.Muller
Odd how no one ever makes these arguments about the fire department. Yep, and all that time on the range argues for the safe public discharge of service firearms while not in the line of duty. Your reasoning is backwards. Rather than excuse such behaviour, public servants entrusted with extended powers should be doubly punished for abusing them. They break both the law and public trust by their actions.
The Fifth of November! The Fifth of November! Remember, Remember the fifth of November!
I don't know any Libertarian that would agree with that. Having a monopoly on initiating violence is the root of authoritarianism. Maybe national defense, but that is obviously dangerous too. More likely, a national registry of dispute resolution if anything at all.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
what about: price agreements between the biggest players in the market ... THAT garantees the largest profit. wake up, capitalism is fundamentally broken.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Folks that spend an average 30hrs a week watching TV (now HD!) don't have the time nor the inclination to change anything, except maybe the channel.
Who the heck do you think you are, ruining a perfectly good libertarian rant with your real-world considerations?
Kythe
sure, but i don't believe in capitalism either. the ground-rules of capitalism are impossible to achieve (total information to the customer, enough competition,... that sort of thing)
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Ask anyone who has gotten arrested/fined by the police, no one ever believes they did something wrong
I know you're getting picked on today, but still.. I love when people use extremes, like "always" and "never". Its the only time I can say they are always wrong. I got "cuffed 'n stuffed" and had to appear in court a month after turning 18 for illegally carrying a police scanner in the car on Mischief Night (the night before Halloween, when kids drive around throwing eggs at people walking on the street).
You sure didn't ask me if I believed I did anything wrong before throwing around phrases like "no one ever". I did plenty wrong that night and got off easy with a fine and impound, AFAIC.
Ah yes, the american lawyer, always looking to harass some sucker. Stalking my ass. Next thing you know I can't even look at someone across the street, or I'll get sued for staring - oh wait, that already happened. Who lives in this so called free country again? The land of intimidation, the land of wanker crybaby pussy lawsuit landmines that is.
I will most definitely be writing a very, very strongly worded letter to my police chief this evening.
I see this shit constantly like you do. Failure to yield, failure to use their lights when speeding, failure to signal turns and lane changes..and that's just traffic infractions.
It is a law that they are not allowed to go more than 10 over. (Even with sirens on!)
I've been on 285W, in the slow lane doing 75mph (it's a 55mph for you non-Atlantians.), and have had Cobb County's finest go flying around me at 90+, no lights on, no anything. If I had happened to change lanes at the wrong time, people would have died.
There is no excuse for this behaviour, and it must stop.
I once saw city cop in a pursuit corvette, pulled over by a state trooper. I must have laughed for days.
I'm pretty sure all we'd need to do is apply the existing laws uniformly.
I know that at this point, you won't concede even a small bit of ground, but the time has come for you to wave the ol' white flag on this one, man.
I know your friend means a lot to you, and I have no doubt that in your friendly dealings with him he's a stand up guy. Watching you defend him today - however wrong and pointless I might feel it has all been - is certainly a powerful testament and it speaks volumes about your loyalty to your friends. I'm not being sarcastic and I'm not trying to be a jerk or take a potshot at you by pointing that out.
My problem here has been your repeated justifications of actions that can have none in any sane ethical system. You cannot uphold a law which you scoff at, and you cannot wield legal power over others which you do not recognize as having power over you as well and still call that power legitimate. This is the very foundation of our system - that we are all equal and that our rights and responsibilities in this regard are also equal. Acting like you are above the law for whatever reason implies that you believe yourself not to be bound as others are by the rules and this is a very destructive attitude no matter who espouses it - but especially for those whom we grant some measure of authority.
I know you think I'm an asshole. You're not the only one. But I will never agree, no matter how many times I hear it, that someone deserves any slack under the law because of something he has chosen to do with his career.
He might be a better man than me, he might be a nicer guy than me, and he might even be smarter, funnier and better looking than me, but legally he is no better than me.
He is obligated to follow the rules just like the rest of us.
Police are bad if society functioned properly we would have not need for them.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Because then they wouldn't need to have a "random gang related shooting, where the assailant could not be identified". They would simply drive over and arrest me for criminal activity. That combined with the fact that when the police threaten you, and the threat goes all the way to the top of the city government, you simply sell your home and move somewhere else. Yes, all the way to the top. It was the mayor herself that told me I would be receiving a call from the police department concerning my complaints.
Ok you set up the radar and camera.
Send the photos to the officer.
wait - no change.
Send the photos to the police chief.
Wait - no change.
Send the photos to the mayor.
wait - no change.
Send the photos to the local paper.
Dont go emailing the officer.
It won't help, and will only piss him off.
If you get no relief, run for office.
Get a pettition for a speed bump.
Don't lose hope, don't make it personal.
Cops abusing their power reminds me of one thing.
Cartman.
"I am an officer of the law! Respect mah authoritay!"
Praise His Noodliness. RAmen.
Won't somebody mod this cocksucker into oblivion? PLEASE?!?!?!
Escape to the north? With Global Warming(TM) it should be a choice.
Hint: in the meantime, learn to club seals- it's all food if it ain't trying to eat You!
All of these posts suggesting 'move somewhere else' seem to be missing the point, and also that mindset contributes to the current problem.
Okay, say we (in the USA), all move to Canada....we will bring the 'cancer' with us, infect Canada with the same ol' BS, then what?
I say fight the infestation where it is, then we can safely annex Canada as per the Fallout series games. (just joking!-WTF with that?)
Oh yes, while I'm on a roll...Kill all the whales, wipe out all rainforests, and invest heavily in petrochem research- fsck all alternative energy!
Did I forget anything?
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
The judges are there to interpret laws that were written by the people (directly through things like ballot measures, or indirectly through legislators), so in some manner he has to be able to know what the people really wanted and really wants. This doesn't mean the judge runs a court with an opinion poll, but "what the founding fathers intended" is certainly a big part of constitutional law, for example. In other times, the judge also must ignore what the people really wanted when the law was written (such as slavery and other civil rights violations) and do the right thing for the time.
By "many," I believe you probably mean "one." The one in particular was the Stanford Prison Experiment, run by Philip Zimbardo back in 1971. It proved your point, but had such a profound negative impact on the participants that it had to be terminated early, and ethical considerations would prevent it from being repeated.
Since citizens have acted against the good of society since the beginning of time, how do you suggest a society be formed that does not need the police? Hammarapis (sp?) contribution was to codify punishment into law. What are you suggesting?
In the Criminal Justice program one is taught that one should never tattle on a fellow police officer, except in the extreme cases.
And this is the reason I changed my major and my career plans, I don't want to become a police officer to protect fellow officers, I would become a cop to enforce justice, sadly that is a pipe dream in this day and age. There Are plenty of stories of police corruption and further protection of said police by courts. Of course what are we going to do about it, nothing because for now they are the in charge, and until things get really out of hand most of us are willing to sit back and watch TV, and play our computer games, most people are more willing to forget about what is going on around them then to actually sit up and pay attention to reality. To actually get up and go do something to change our system is against the way most of us were raised.
Don't get me wrong, I know plenty of straight officers. I know plenty of really good people in the justice system, and yet, those people don't do anything against those who are corrupt amongst them.
Cops are definately not cowards. You can say they abuse their powers at times, but I think it takes alot of balls to be dealing with criminals on a constant basis. I don't know if you ever been shot at before, but putting yourself in the line of fire is not a cowardly action.
Yea, tell that to the dead kids at Columbine
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
No. There were also the electrical shock psych tests and others where people ignored pleading by the victim to stop shocking them (and this was only within a period of a few hours).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
And it's kind of funny that so many of the annecdotes tend to involve citizens with a deep seeded opinion that the police are bad.
Anecdote. Which was hot on the heels of another anecdote. I'm sure some of the shoppers (who had receipts) who were arrested have an opinion as to whether or not the police are bad. I'm sure some of the people thrown in jail over faked DNA evidence have an opinion as to whether or not the police are bad.
Is it really that funny to you?
I've also seen several good people become cops for the same reason, only to wind up quitting a few years later (including the chief of police at one point).
It doesn't take too many assholes on the police force to make life hell for someone who wants to change things for the better... same as in any other office.
I've found that nurturing one's Zen nature is vital to dealing with technology. Violence is pretty damn useful too.
Chances are it is legal where you are. Only a few states require all parties to consent. Most only require one party (the reciever) The following states require only ONE person to be aware of it being taped. That can be the person recieving the call. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolinas North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming The follow require all parties to consent. California Connecticut Florida Illinois Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Montana ("the law does not apply to public officials or employees speaking in the course of their duties, to anyone speaking at a public meeting, or to anyone who has been warned of the recording." I think cops are public officals.) New Hampshire (A misdemeanor if you have only one, felony if you have none) Pennsylvania ("consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.") Washington Other Vermont "There is no legislation specifically addressing interception of communications in Vermont, but the state's highest court has held that surreptitious electronic monitoring of communications in a person's home is an unlawful invasion of privacy. Vermont v. Geraw, 795 A.2d 1219 (Vt. 2002); Vermont v. Blow, 602 A.2d 552 (Vt. 1991). The state's highest court, however, also has refused to find the overhearing of a conversation in a parking lot unlawful because that conversation was "subject to the eyes and ears of passersby." Vermont v. Brooks, 601 A.2d 963 (Vt. 1991)." from http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
I don't preview or spellcheck.
I don't think you understand that the point isn't this specific officer, it's a government in which this kind of abuse is generally permissible. Except that it isn't. For one thing, it's not abuse: they broke the local statues regarding stalking, period. For another, abuse of power is not "generally permissible."
Should this cop get a ticket? Well, no, because the radar gun isn't a permissible one. Should someone at the department have a long conversation with him about speeding? Hell, yes, from a human and a professional perspective. Should other cops be keeping an eye out for him on the road? Yeah, like you would anyone who commonly speeds. Will they? I pessimistically suspect not, and that would indeed be abuse of power, and I wish it didn't happen. I wish cops weren't flawed humans like the rest of us, that they were mindless engines of justice. I wish they were a world apart, true heroes. I wish I lived in a world where every single cop could be like that. Hell, I'd settle for just one more cop like that. But we live in the world in which we live. Want it to be better? Make it so.
I love dragging out this story every time the police aplogists come out of the woodwork.
:weeps:) because my other jobs had fallen through. My good friend Pam was working drive through, when a large, pissed off black woman pulled to the pick-up window and tried to order something. We were in the middle of a rush (if you don't understand what a "rush" is in fast food parlance, count yourself blessed and imagine instead, say, the first 10 minutes from Saving Private Ryan), so Pam told her "sorry, we don't take orders from this window, you'llhave to drive around again."
Many years ago, I was working a brief stint at McDonalds (yes, McDonalds
The woman was... displeased. She got out of the car, started berating my friend quit severely, tried to pry open the window while Pam held it shut, then, as god as my witness, she punched THROUGH the plate glass window, hitting Pam in the face.
Through all this, my friend mantained professionalism, did not insult the customer and after she was hit, calmly walked away and called the police. You see, even the lowliest fry cooks are expected to have PROFESSIONALISM. We were not allowed to yell at customers, let alone spit in their food. We did our jobs as civilly as possible, despite the fact that it was gruling and we were making wage.
My friend, the FRY COOK, observed that the woman had done a VERY stupid thing and was now bleeding profusely everywhere and was in no shape to threaten anyone. What would your average cop have done, if a large black woman had slugged HIM across the chin? Would he have allowed her to fall to the ground and bleed and cry in peace? Or would he first teach her a lesson? At the very least, I'd say, she would walk away with a few extra nasty brusies. If the cop was in a bad mood, probably a broken bone or a concussion. I've seen, on a Cops-like reality show, the police tazer a (black) man who was doing nothing other than "walking towards them in a threatening manner", when I could see nothing even remotely threatening in his shuffling about (a good 15+ feet away--they were the projectile tazers, and his hands were in plain sight.) The police were PROUD to defend their actions, and confident enough to release the footage to the producers of the show (so, I wondered--what was on the tape they felt too questionable to release?) After being shocked, the man fell face first onto cement, most likely resulting in severe contusions and hairline fractures.
But this war story of mine is just an extreme example. Trust me, McDonald's has a neverending supply of asshole customers. The fact of the matter is, you can walk into nearly any retail business--insulting, cussing, being as big of an asshole as you want--and the workers there (so long as they aren't self-employeed business owners) will generally refrain from retaliation. They will DO THEIR JOBS with as least some semblance of professionalism.
But you'd have to be CRAZY to try the same asshole routine with a cop. They do NOT give a rats ass about fairness and professionalism unless you kiss the they walk on.
Yeah yeah yeah, I'm SURE it's a shitty job, but--in the words of Carlos Mencia--when they give you a sidearm, a second gun to strap to your ankle, pepper spray (actually, more often it's a chemical mace unavailable to the public) to blind them, a stick to beat 'em down with, a bulletproof vest to protect you from return fire, a shotgun in a trunk, a dog in the back seat and a radio so you can call for backup, you just might have to think to yourself: you know, I think some shit might be going down. To put it another way, as cops you should be PREPARED to wield the authority, the power that has been entrusted to you--but you should absolutely NOT use it unless necessary. When these cops decided to arrest and charge this poor couple for reporting a crime (yes, infractions such as speeding are *crimes*), they abused their power and we should NOT forgive them simply because i
Note to self: hit preview to perserve lists. Here it slightly easier to read. Sorry about that.
,Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
The following states require only ONE person to be aware of it being taped. That can be the person recieving the call. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolinas, North Dakota, Ohio
The follow require all parties to consent. California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan Montana ("the law does not apply to public officials or employees speaking in the course of their duties, to anyone speaking at a public meeting, or to anyone who has been warned of the recording." I think cops are public officals.)
New Hampshire (A misdemeanor if you have only one, felony if you have none) Pennsylvania ("consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.")
Washington
Other Vermont "There is no legislation specifically addressing interception of communications in Vermont, but the state's highest court has held that surreptitious electronic monitoring of communications in a person's home is an unlawful invasion of privacy. Vermont v. Geraw, 795 A.2d 1219 (Vt. 2002); Vermont v. Blow, 602 A.2d 552 (Vt. 1991). The state's highest court, however, also has refused to find the overhearing of a conversation in a parking lot unlawful because that conversation was "subject to the eyes and ears of passersby." Vermont v. Brooks, 601 A.2d 963 (Vt. 1991)."
from http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
I don't preview or spellcheck.
Then you get arrested for anarchy
In the immortal words of Chicago's mayor Richard Daley: "The policeman isn't there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder."
There's a great hard Sci-Fi novel by Greg Bear called "Queen of Angels." The novel is set in the binary new year, 2048. Nanotech has transformed civilization and Therapied people get the best jobs/housing/care. "High Naturals" do not need therapy and are up there with the Therapied. The Untherapied, artists, outcasts, dreamers, and visionaries are becoming social outcasts.
This is not the best part though: Citizen Oversight is a clearing-house of all surveillance data--which is a terrifying thought in 40 years. Think of every single RFID chip, nano-camera, and swipe card going into one place. Imagine the immense power of that place.
Greg Bear posits that Citizen Oversight began as a way to keep track of population statistics and give the long view on civic needs. Then a very bad president named Raphkind comes along and says Law Enforcement has control over Citizen Oversight and America becomes an uber-police state. You'll get a fine in the mail for absent-mindedly dropping a bit of wrapper on the sidewalk or crossing a few seconds before the light changes. The people get fed up with this and Citizen Oversight is given to an ACLU-type organization with elected officials. It is no longer Big Brother and even the police have to come begging for info an a serial murderer. Citizen Oversight will only say if the murderer is in the country or not. Even if they have complete footage of the murder!
Anyways, Bear is an excellent author/thinker and his books give me hope for the future and my nieces and nephews. (Damned if I'm having kids.)
I agree. I abhor the thought of abused authority and double standards as much as anyone here, but when I really stop to think about it, I realize that I have no basis for estimating just how prevalent it is. In fact, my only "experience" with what goes on in the criminal justice system is the *fictional* TV crime dramas and the occasional press report like this. A few years ago I read an article about how TV crime dramas set in the United States were starting to get into people's heads: French citizens were telling police who came to their door that they could not come in without a warrant, when in fact the authorities did not even need a warrant in France. I wonder if a similar thing is happening with the "They're all tyrants!" crowd. How many of them are basing their disdain, without realizing it, on the rule-flaunting, hotroding, car requisitioning, do-whatever-it-takes-to-take-down-the-bad-guy T.V. detectives who get nothing more than a stern "don't do it again" from their on-screen supervisors? Or press reports like this one, which are few compared to the number of interactions that these agencies have with the public on a daily basis. So while there is little I hate more than authority without accountability, and while it pains me to defend anyone who considers themselves an authority over anyone else, I'm not going to say anything about how bad it is unless I have experience with the REAL system.
Not to mention that speed limit would be much better enforced by cameras that would ticket everyone, and not just a select few that police felt like bringing over, leaving 90% of other cars on the road going over the speed limit.
And people would take speed limits seriously for a change. And the limits would have to be brought up from 55mph to something sane for a change.
I wish someone did a study as to what fraction of cars on average major US highway are actually going under the speed limit when there's no traffic. I would be very surprised if it was over 20%. Doesn't this mean that police is doing a simply horrible job?
And as for speeding police cars - I see this all the time. No lights flashing, nothing - just speeding. It's simply routine. Sometimes escorting "officials" in that way too. All this just adds to the insult - I don't why everyone is happy with the status quo. This is something most of Americans have to deal with on a daily basis.
p.s. I actually respect US police for the most part, but the way speed on the highways is enforced is simply ludicrous.
You really are a fucking idiot. The officer accused the couple of stalking because they repeatedly EMAILED him. He wanted it to stop. That was the issue.
You, on the other hand, have some serious FUCKING issues to deal with, and you need to work those out before you make a fool of yourself in public... again.
It's all great that one could consider experience in being allowed to speed but there's one important factor...
You forgot to consider how well public roads are maintained in this country. It's one thing to do 150+ on a carefully groomed and maintained race track with other fully focused drivers, and another to do it on a public road with completely inattentive drivers. All it takes is one good pothole at speed, a tire blowing to shreds, and you have one nice big ugly wreck from it. (Don't get me wrong, I'm for an American autobahn. But until we can do something about ensuring driver attentiveness/education and not mis-appropriating road funds to shoddy patch jobs being called construction/repair - it's not going to happen.)
Cops being allowed to speed is the exception and not the rule. Even with the supposed training it's still very risky. Unless they've got their emergency lights on, they're supposed to follow the same rules everyone else does.
This is a very eloquent but deranged rant. It's little more - it's actually the minority of police and other government officials who are bad eggs. It's important to weed them out, but to call them all corrupt is clearly nutso, at least to anyone who has worked with police on anything other than the receiving end of their role. Given good laws, the police are, by and large, important for the well-being of society. In areas where the laws are badly flawed, this is less true, but at the very least we need them to a certain extent - to go without would expose us to great danger. Some people have a problem with the very idea of authority (parental issues?), and others have legitimately had issues with some police, but to consider them as an institution to be flawed, harmful, or unnecessary is not a perspective that should be considered mature or productive. Those who would do so would be better off finding means to improve the system than advocating its destruction.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Ahhh, the old "It's only anecdotal" canard. What the fuck do you expect people to do -- survey all the local cops, asking if each has ever used his authority or threatened a citizen with being charged with a crime, under color of authority? (The oft-reported cases of cops warning citizens not to record their actions, even from 20 feet away, comes to mind.)
I was once in traffic school and the instructor, an obvious wannabe cop type, tried to defend a cop back east who was seen by citizens to be exceeding 100 mph -- on his way home to lunch, as it turned out. (Maybe his wife gave one hell of a nooner.) Anyway, the lamer of an instructor asserted that the cop's civil rights had been violated by those reporting him. What shit.
Govt organizations like nothing better than to come into some other jurisdiction and "clean up". If you don't think so, go read about the little tiff between the US Congress and the President. And that's at the top!
Why do you think the FBI went down south to integrate?
Even in governmental organizations, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Dang....
I thought that this only happens in 'Bama
Noam ? is that you?
I'm happy you finally got a slashdot account.
I was beaten up by a "Peace Officer",a Policeman,hired to "protect and serve",, for doing 40mph in a 35mph for about a half a block.the last stretch to the Pharmacy before they closed.In a hurry to get my Wifes Medicine,my Wife,then recovering from Heart Surgery almost Two Weeks earlier. As Weird Al would say,"I'm White & Nerdy", I'm totally non-threatening,except at Tekken. Further more,I know how to behave when pulled over by the Cops,I was young once. Yet i was yanked out of my car by my Throat and slammed against my Car.When the Officer was violently frisking me,he "accidentally"hit me with his Flashlight on the side of my head,when i said ouch he hit me in the private area,from under neath with his flashlight.I didn't dare give him any more excuse to mistreat me. When it was all said and done he gave me a ticket full of Lies,Exaggerations,and just plain Mistakes. So I turned him in,and when I told the Sargent in charge of him,that I didn't want the young man to get into serious trouble,I would just like an Apology.The Sargent nearly kicked my ass right there in the Police Station Lobby.He started yelling and screaming,trying to get his Hands on me,as I walked backwards away from him towards the door.Even after I was outside he was still yelling and intimidating me.I feared for my life.
Funny? Yeah, maybe...informative...definately
--- I've completed diagnosis of your problem and can classify it as a YOYO...You're On Your Own
Oh sure...
Like I want to work with power crazy assholes all day, everyday.
You sir, are a tool.
Agreed. In New Jersey, last year, on route 1 there were two separate cops that crashed with civ's being killed. in one case, the cop was off-duty, going 100mph in a 50, possible a 40 where they were, crossed over the divider and killed 4 people going the other way, plus himself. His training didn't really seem to enlighten him any more than myself, actually, it appears as though it made him stupider for his higher confidence.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Police may trump the average citizen, but the press trumps the police. While many of the stories they do are bunk, your local TV news station's investigative reporter will be only too happy to put your story on the air, from the car crashes to your investigation to the problems the city and its police caused for you.
As with anything, there's no guarantees that this will work, but it's probably the best way to get someone with some clout on your side.
OMG, I really can't believe this was modded "Insightful". It is total BS. First off, in most states (Pennsylvania for sure) "average citizens" have full arrest powers. Any citizen can (and many do everyday) arrest criminals. Now this power is extended to what is known as a "breach of the peace", not any old law on the books. The theory goes (the way I was told) other non-breach-of-the-peace laws didn't warrant immeadiate custody, therefor you had time to go get a law enforcement officer. BTW: A breach of the peace is hard to pin down and seems to change now and again, as well as by state. But in PA it is every felony and several misdemeanors. If you are interested in the topic search it out on the net, you'd be surprised what a citizen can do: http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLfiles /COA/2982.htmCitizen arrest in DUI case (BTW- Non-Felony)
Your friend should consider himself lucky that he wasn't charged with obstructing a police officer with a garage...
How unfortunate we are that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document that will stand in court. It's not part of the Constitution.
Can you explain why you wrote a wikipedia page for yourself and your political philosophy?
How did I come to that conclusion?
First of all, there is actually a page for them (unanimocracy and A.B. Dada). That seems unlikely considering you aren't anybody important, just a frequent slashdot poster, and no one cares about your political beliefs.
Second of all, the articles are entirely written (besides a few typo corrections) by the same person, "MrLiberty".
Thirdly, they present your views in as persuasive rather than explanatory way.
Fourth, that same person posted a page about a cocktail which you supposedly invented, which was subsequently deleted for (as I recall) not being notable. I wonder how someone who is not you knew about a cocktail supposedly named after and made by you that no one else knows about.
Fifth, the article on you discusses things that only you or someone you knew well (who also shouldn't be making articles about you) would know. It talks about you having all these views (which are described in a very positive way) and the local Christian leaders not liking you for it. Wow, I must have missed that article in the New York Times.
I guess I should post this on Wikipedia too.
That was the Milgram experiment from 1961, which didn't have a thing to do with prison.
You couldn't be more wrong, hippy. Ever heard of a little website called ebay, maybe Amazon. Fucking craigslist? Power to the people, beeatch!
Prett crazy, thinking I should be free.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
I get them to chase my mini onto highway ramps at speeds they could never safely take them... and watch them scramble to stay on the road (right side up).
:-p tailgating jackasses.
They always take the bait
libertarian here, and I believe that peace officers are indeed part of the government's responsability. Now why the heck they're embroiled in the 'drug war' and enforcing prostitution and gambling laws* is beyond me.
Of course, I do consider myself a moderate libertarian. Some of the fringe are just barely this side of anarchists. Of course, you should listen to some looney republicans or democrats on occasion.
As for the monopoly - Well, police are the clean up squad. I don't expect every joe and jane to have to deal with every criminal menace. For one thing, they really have only one option for resolution of the problem - lethal force. With no police, non-lethal isn't effective because once the goblin recovers he's free to return to attack them again.
For controlling the police - Maybe a citizen's review board. Each year all the local officer's records are reviewed and they're rewarded if they've done good, and punished/fined/fired if they've done bad. I like the reward idea because then the review board is not seen solely as a negative by the police.
*Well, unless the drugs are adulterated with dangerous chemicals, the hooker's got a dangerous disease and isn't telling customers or the casino's tables are fixed.
I don't read AC A human right
Exactly.
We have had an ongoing speed problem down out street. At one point, I yelled "SLOW THE FUCK DOWN ASSHOLE". The kid stops. Backs up. I pick up the hefty baseball bat that was sitting at my neighbors house (we're outside drinking beer).
Tim says "Hold a sec" and yells out "Andrew, Don't you know the speed limit here"... he *knew* the kid- and I let them handle it. Kid promised to slow down. etc, etc.
1 week later, I see Andrew's TOTALLED car sitting out in front of Timmy's house. Turns out Andrew was kicked out of his home after demolishing his car by doing 57 in a 35 (I yelled at him for doing 47 in a 35- and yes, we had a speed-truck in front to show the numbers). Andrew was 18. I hope he's learned his lesson, but I don't have alot of faith.
Did I mention our street is only 350 feet long?
Check out how bad the CT State police got the past few years. Assault, battery, sexual assault, fraud, murder, larceny, DUI. And not just the isloated anecdotal case involving someone with an axe to grind. 4 DUIs and one guy's still on the force. They've beaten their girlfriends, and two murder+suicides by CSP, one killed his civilian wife, the other his local PD girlfriend. And no one saw it coming or stepped into admittedly bizarre behavior. They had to call in the IAD department of the New York State Police to untangle this one. The current explanation seems to be that there are 99 ways the CSP can get in trouble, and that's too confusing, they n eed it down to 21. I am not making this up. And the higher-ups looked at each incident and did nothing to stop or prosecute these. Go back two decades til you find the part where one of the finest lawyers (yes, I'm serious) to ever practice law was in charge of straightening out the CSP as the Chief State's Attorney, and they made him go away in a very public and very ugly fashion.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Dumb-assed anti-gunners. I tore up my NRA card many years ago (quit hounding your paying members for more money, thereby squandering it all on postage!), but I may have to send them a few bucks after reading this.
Give them a call. I did to be placed on the 'reduced mailing list'. I get a begging letter once a year with my new card, and I'm a lifetime member.
ps
Yes I'm a gun-toting libertarian. I own all sorts of 'scary' guns. They haven't hurt anybody, at least since I've gotten them. Got a problem with that?
When one owns a used M1 Garand and Yugoslavian SKS, I can't say for sure that they haven't been used in anger.
I don't read AC A human right
I'm sure they're set to ignore police cars, the police probably know exactly where they are(so they can slow down for them), and in most cases aren't considered criminal offenses, so if the officer quietly pays the ticket, it's not going to make the news.
Still, there's a lot of hate for the cameras in many areas. I've heard that they're going to place second cameras to catch the vandals who're taking out the speed cameras in Ireland. Or was it Scotland? My solution to that - Wear a mask.
I don't read AC A human right
If Wal*Mart serves me badly, against what I consider a profitable exchange, I stop shopping there.
Based on your unrealistic and hardcore free-market stance, I can see where you're taking this - privatising the Police (and, by extension, the entire legal system).
Sounds like a great idea. I can't wait to have the local mafia extorting money out of me so I (and my family) don't have any "accidents".
Freedom is a laudable ideal, but thinking that private police forces and private security forces could in any way make most people more free is insanity masquerading as sense. The failure of Libertarians (the big-L, Libertarian party kind), is in simple over-application of a trend.
Some reduction in government size leads to an increase in freedom, but it does not follow that drastic reductions lead to drastic increases, any more than it follows that if some water is good for you drinking tons of it must be better.
Are you saying that abusing the law "because you can" is not a power trip? And that it's surprising that people who have requested no "help" themselves get angry when help their neighbors called arrests them?
Yeah, the one in a position to and attempting to hit me is the violent one, the one lying on the floor refusing to move is the nonviolent one.
COULD harm the individual as opposed to using the taser which WILL harm the individual but greater shields the officer from the minor risk of injury posed by 6 burly men trying to move one student. An inherent risk in taking the job of police officer is that you might get hurt doing your job, so I don't see a tradeoff which means that the public (who didn't sign up to be police officers) get hurt more so the police get hurt less as a fair one.
I don't get it. I read that all the way through and what you referenced isn't in there (indeed, it seems to have been written about 2 years ago, before this incident), so I'll just have to address your points as if it's you making them
I don't - why would keeping people who, (not possesing a university ID card,) may or may not be students out during off-peak hours make sense?
A quite well established method of demonstrating the stupidity of a bad policy.
When told to by who? when a minor busy-body tells you to do something, is it unreasonable to consider whether that person is overstepping their authority? (for instance, if I tell you to run out of your house singing 'tie me kangeroo down sport' right now, should you immediately comply just incase it is actually within my authority to tell you to do that?)
Possibly, possibly not, but since when the real police arrived he went to leave, the opportunity to resolve the situation sensibly was available (he's out of the library, point made, nobody arrested, everybody's happy), instead, the police chose to unnecessarily escalate the situation.
So he complied with the initial instructions, albeit late
They may have had every right to arrest him, they didn't have every right to assault him in the process, which is the point at issue. There is a difference between 'breaking the law and making everything ok by leaving' and 'being told to leave and, when you've esta
FGD 135
In other times, the judge also must ignore what the people really wanted when the law was written (such as slavery and other civil rights violations) and do the right thing for the time.
That's what Amendments are for. You know, like the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments?
I don't read AC A human right
Soon it will be time for war. That is all I have to say.
http://www.copwatchla.org/
http://www.copwatch.com/
(there are more sites like these out there)
I'd argue that, as the designated enforcers of the law, they should first set an example by obeying the law. They already have exemptions built into many laws to help them get their job done, like ignoring speed limits and traffic signs while enroute to an emergency situation or in pursuit of a fleeing suspect.
42 in a 25 is unsafe, even with lights on.
I don't read AC A human right
Cop or not, you speed if there is a need to, not because you "can".
Police, Medical, and Fire are all authorized exemptions to many traffic laws in my state. In all cases it's a matter of determining that the increased risk from not following the rules is outweighed by the risk of not getting to the destination *quickly*. Everybody in our area get's out of the way of the ambulance. On the highway, with lights and sirens flashing they're often doing at least 100mph. On the other hand, I figure they have a heart attack/stroke victim in there. Minutes can mean the difference between life, disability and death.
I don't read AC A human right
Explain how the timestamps were synchronized on multiple cameras.
Yep, they're no good either, unless there is overlapping frame coverage that could be utilized to extrapolate a speed.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
As a cadet engineer for a road authority one of my duties was undertaking speed surveys with a radar on streets where we had received complaints from residents. Over a period of 3 years I did approximately 10 hours of radar work a week. It was my experience (and thats all it is because no identifying information was recorded about any vehicle) that police cars along with tow trucks, couriers, in-home nursing care vehicles (those blue nurses were always in a hurry) and local residents were the most likely group to speed.
Approximately once per month I was confronted by the a police officer I had observed speeding. My supervisor and I were both questioned (not quite harassed) by two police officers that had been speeding on my first day of work.
It was my experience that police cars were almost always in excess of the speed limit unless there were other motorists around (ie in traffic).
In the end I was hesitant to even raise the radar gun to take a reading if it was a cop. I didn't need the hassle and I surely didn't need the remainder of my survey to be invalidated due to the police ensuring my presence was highlighted.
Anyway, in the end I found the easiest way to deal with a police officer was simply to respond to the inevitable question "What speed was I doing?" with whatever the posted limit was. That always worked and they would get straight back in the car. Even the guy doing 120 km/h (~75 mph) in a 40 km/h (~25 mph) zone just smiled and drove off.
Damned straight -- from someone else with cops in the family.
Believe it or not, I once, while serving on jury duty, heard a bunch of sheriff's deputies at the next table yukking it up over one of their buddies who was "just a bit too macho for his own good -- he beat the shit out of a nun he had in custody."
Nice to know how the cops think of "the others".It's often said, and with much justification, "To a cop, there are three kinds of people in the world -- cops, cops' families and suspects".
Could it mean you or I could then speed "within the law" up to 17 MPH over the sign? To me, I could give two craps if a cop speeds passed me. But if I press harder on my gas pedal to get home faster and get a $100+fine and traffic school then damn right I'll be pissed.
If a million people jumped off a cliff, it'd only be a short time until I landed in a nice soft mountain of bodies.
The 14th Amendment extended citizenship to Black males in 1867, but Brown v. Board of Education happened in 1954. Clearly, laws don't just take real effect when they are signed. The country still did the "wrong thing" for nearly 90 years until judges ordered it to stop.
Determining the meaning of Privacy is also another good example of judges interpreting what isn't literally written.
Cops are definately not cowards. You can say they abuse their powers at times, but I think it takes alot of balls to be dealing with criminals on a constant basis.
Debatable. Some would say it doesn't take much balls at all to face down 99% of the "criminals" out there that beat officers deal with. Most of them are drunks, junkies, or other petty criminals. Haven't you ever watched "Cops"? How brave do you really have to be when you're better armed, better armored, backed by the government, and both you and the skinny guy you caught with a $5 rock know it? I think you're mistaking bravado for bravery.
I don't know if you ever been shot at before, but putting yourself in the line of fire is not a cowardly action.
Line of fire? Most cops, even in big cities, go their entire careers without being shot at. And when a gunfight happens, then you see just how rare true bravery is. Most firefights consist of two guys-- cop and perp-- trying to hide from each other while trading shots that generally miss. Seriously, if you read just about any analysis of police reaction to being thrust into a surprise firefight, you find all but a very rare few officers are able to stick to their tactical training and not turn into a ducking, dodging, flailing, retreating clusterfuck waving a gun towards the shooter and pulling the trigger. Just about the same reaction you'd find in the general population to a guy pulling a knife-- most of us would fucking RUN, and the truly brave few would actually fight the guy (and, like the cop, usually WIN).
People always bitch and moan about cops screwing them over. The fact is that cops are saving people's lives every day,
How? By showing up to take report after a burglary? To take a report after an assault? To rough up a kid selling $5 rocks on the corner? I'd call it a stretch to say they're saving lives. Fire/EMT guys? Damn straight, saving lives. Cops? No.
but once a cop is giving you a speeding ticket they instantly become the tyranny the rules over us all. I have even more respect for cops because of this.
You have more respect for cops specifically because others have less? That makes no fucking sense.
My friend says most of his non-report writing time is spent on dealing with domestic disputes.
Wait, so he's not out catching murderers and having shootouts? How much bravery does it take for two armed, armored cops to separate a drunken couple and tell them to either a) file a complaint so one of them can be hauled off, or b) pipe down and sober up? Granted, it's a tough job dealing with unreasonable drunks at all hours, but really, that is primarily what "keeping the peace" is. It's tedious, largely thankless work that you couldn't pay me enough to do. Given the nature of the work, it's patently obvious that it would lend itself more to bravado than bravery. The appearance of bravery is more than enough to do 99% of the job.
He always tries to get both sides of the story, and tries to treat people with respect. He's told me many stories where he is treated like shit by the person who he is trying to help. Do you know what it feels like to be treated like shit, when you're only trying to help? If you are dick to a cop, don't be surprised when he is dick back. The difference is that he can actually screw you over. The golden rule can go a long way with dealing with cops.
Problem is, expectation of "Golden Rule" behavior is only appropriate when you're talking about two equal parties. Cops, being officers of the law, should have no fucking right at all to be dicks, no matter how dickish the citizen they're dealing with is acting. They are instruments of the State, and if they cannot execute their duties fairly and impartially, they should get jobs doing something else. Frankly, I'm pretty fucking sick and tired of people excusing
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I tried that. The one local TV channel told me that they would not cover it because the city would cause them all sorts of problems if they did anything beyond a fluff piece, and the nearest station that was not inside the city limits was in San Francisco. They are far enough away that the problems of one neighborhood 60 miles away was not even on their radar.
I don't disagree, I suppose. It's just that if you have a choice, between the groups that the system was designed to have you write in situations like this, and a group that is intended to be impartial, you're going to generally have better luck with the former than the latter.
Judges normally don't bring anyone up on charges. That's supposed to be the executive branch's job, though I'm not a lawyer.
The police are there to "Protect AND Serve" the citizens. ie - they are OUR employees. We HAVE the right to fire them. We HAVE the right to have them arrested (citizen's arrest). We HAVE the right to enforce the laws on THEM that they swore to UPHOLD upon entering into the Police force.
Police officers HAVE to follow the laws to the letter. They have to be upheld to a much higher standard than the average citizen. Unless they are actively in pursuit of a suspect, or on the way to a crime scene, they HAVE to obey EVERY traffic law. If the police officers don't have to follow the laws, then no-one does.
This goes for any political office, up to and including the President of the U.S.A. This seems to be something that GW2 has forgotten.
I had my own issues with a deputy sherrif, who was video-taped (unknowingly of course) altering the measurements at an accident scene. During the court case, when questioned about his altering the data (by lifting the wheel, taking 2 steps, then setting it back down, to alter the distances measured), he stated under oath that he didn't do it. After the judge saw the video tape, he not only lost his job, he was arrested for falsifying official documents and lying under oath. I don't believe he'll ever work in law enforcement again. He didn't deserve to be there in the first place, as he didn't even bother to administer a breath-alizer test to the other driver, even after it was LOUDLY commented upon that the other driver smelled like a brewery.
I've met my fair share of good cops, but that was one dirty deputy sherrif.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
This reminds me of a trick the North Dakota highway patrol used to do (and may yet for all I know) -- after dark, they'd tailgate you with their high-beams on. Most people will reflexively drive faster, trying to get away from the obnoxious bright lights in their rearview mirror. And this instantly leads to getting a speeding ticket.
I've personally witnessed this. Tell me, how is this not entrapment?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
And if Canada is corrupt...oh wait, it already is. Dang it.
The Slashdot Limerick
I like calling speeding tickets a randomly assigned tax. Almost everyone speeds, and you hardly ever get a ticket. So, if it happens to be your day, you have to pay the tax.
It is safe to say that most anyone that is into cars has more driving experience than what your typical cop gets. Saying a cop gets 8 hours of training behind the wheel, if any, is generous. Simply put, just about anyone that drives cars as a sport/hobby can driver better than the VAST majority of cops. The trick is, it is EASY to follow someone and it is hard to get away. Having said that, people get away from cops all the time.
Long story short, any idiot saying it is safer for cops to speed than your typical citizen is clearly disconnected from reality.
I am in CA. I have never heard of the exception for public official and employees. Is that employees of public officials, or employees of anybody? Also, do you happen to have a reference. I would love to be well armed (metaphorically speaking) should this kind of thing ever happen again.
Tell me, how is this not entrapment?
Simple, many judges get to keep a portion of the funds collected through tickets. Thusly, if you want to complain, it must go to court whereby, the judge is very happy to correct you that HIS money is not yours to scorn.
And no, I'm not making this bullshit up!
I'll throw another shrimp on the barby for ya!
Will those of you who think that you know what you are doing, get out of the way of those of us who know what we are doi
An AC replies,
"Simple, many judges get to keep a portion of the funds collected through tickets. Thusly, if you want to complain, it must go to court whereby, the judge is very happy to correct you that HIS money is not yours to scorn."
Hmm. And tell me, why is this not an illegal kickback, or at the very least a conflict of interest??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
If Wal*Mart serves me badly, against what I consider a profitable exchange, I stop shopping there. Eventually, we see stores fail -- even big ones, ...
... This doesn't seem to work very well. I haven't shopped at a Wal*Mart in over a decade, and they're still doing business. They've grown, in fact.
Hmmm
So how long after I stop shopping there can I expect them to fail?
(This isn't an isolated non-failure, either. I haven't bought anything from Microsoft for over a decade, and they're still doing pretty well, too.)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Right. So then you could use your extensive training to avoid the accident that is caused when your excessive speed freaks out some 80-year old (or otherwise "bad" driver) who wasn't expecting you to pass/approach so quickly. Oh wait, the accident will probably happen behind you. So it's not really your problem, unless he/she happens to be turning in front of you or scrambles suddenly to get out of your way. (This happens all the time, right? The infamous "T-bone?")
Speed limits don't exist to "hold you back." They (presumably) exist to create a nice predictable flow of traffic so that the "minimally educated driver" can get from point A to point B without shitting his/her/your pants, and without causing an accident. The graduated license that you speak of might work on the highway (carpool lane?) or if the licensing process was improved, (i.e. with better licensed drivers), or under certain driving conditions (night-time, no traffic). But all the training in the world won't prevent other people from overcompensating for unpredicable actions--actions that are far removed from what those drivers consider "normal." And your advanced training won't prevent them from being horribly bad drivers themselves.
Consider this: Some people are astonishingly bad at timing their turns/merges with oncoming traffic. Could you imagine how badly they would do if the speed limit was variable? I can. I live in Albuquerque, where traffic on a 45-MPH road may be going anywhere between 30 and 65 MPH in any lane, at any time. I pooped a little in fear just thinking about it!
It's *always* the other guy that I worry about when driving, and that includes situations where I think that my actions might provoke an unintended reaction. Personally, if you drive predictably, and give me (and those around me) a reasonable time to think and react, I don't care how fast you drive.
-jde
FWIW, I've actually witnessed a cop rear ending someone. Man, that must suck...
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
...that you would still be upstanding example of society?
Damn well better be! Or turn in your badge and gun! It's that simple. Respect is earned, and the institution he works for has a lot of "earning" to do. It doesn't matter how "nice" you are, if you work for the devil, then the devil you are.
What?
Now, there are some who might claim that this was not a threat of violence
Yes, there are. But none of those people are judges or lawyers.
What you did is protected by the US Constitution. Go find yourself a lawyer, NOW. You need to know your rights and duties in relation to your state's laws.
And people would take speed limits seriously for a change. And the limits would have to be brought up from 55mph to something sane for a change.
Trouble is, the city will take one look at all that ticket revenue and leave the speed limits ridiculously low-- that's partly why they're low in first place. Really, they'd need to raise the limits to something reasonable first, as nobody is going to respect a 35 speed limit on a road that's clearly safe at 50.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
And that is when you run for mayor in the next election. Don't bring up anything in the campaign that you can't verify in writing, but bring up everything you can. Go out and talk to people, take pictures manually*, stir up "trouble" just don't break any laws doing it unless your goal is to overturn said law. You don't have to be rich, or a people person, or have any political experience, hell your goal isn't even to win. Now all your "trouble making" is under the name of "campaigning" and the incumbent won't dare do a damned thing to try and hush you, especially if you live in a state where you are allowed to record phone calls. You will get the public attention, and if the incumbent mayor wants to be re-elected bad enough he will make changes happen. Of course, it helps if there are multiple things going "wrong", and given what you've said I'd guess there are some funds the city received that are past due for spending on their intended purpose. You might even be surprised at what's on public record that no one ever thought to go look up.
My uncle did this a few years ago and even almost won, scared the hell out of him because he had no intention of winning. During the campaign he went looking for what money the city had and what it was to be used for and one thing he found was that funds were set aside 3 years prior to rebuild the front stairs at city hall and no work had even been thought about, requests for bids were not even opened. Worse yet, the funds weren't even in an interest bearing account because they were supposed to be spent. He took a couple pictures of the literally crumbing stairs and a copy of the documents he found to the local paper, they put it on the front page. Two months later all the stairs were finished and had additional hand rails to make them easer to ascend too. He found a lot of other things as well, some he suspected and others not, many were made right before the election. The incumbents got the picture really quick and the town is a better place for it now. They actually started being proactive, and there's no telling how bad it would have gotten had someone not stepped up and challenged the status quo.
*no matter what "they" claim, you are allowed to take pictures of whatever you want in public, without any justification.
- Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
How many more patrols? Five times as many? To seriously reduce auto theft would take a hell of a lot of resources. Additionally it's generally a non-violent crime. As far as priorities go, it should be down the list from violent crimes.
That's all fine and dandy, but the reality is that my word against the police on whether they threatened me or not will only lead to a he said she said situation. It is naive to think that the police officer, and the mayor that had them threaten me would be more than unconvinced by my accusations. It is also naive to believe that an "accident" or "random home invasion" wouldn't be enough of a convince to make sure that me, my wife, or son didn't have an unfortunate event happen. If I were single, I might have considered fighting it farther, but I wasn't going to have my wife or child murdered over this event. I did try contacting the FBI, but the response I got back, boiled down to "It's a local matter. It has to be handled locally." The prudent thing to do was sell my home, and move somewhere that I was no longer considered an "inconvenience" to the local police. I suppose in the long run I could consider the experience to be a "learned a lesson the easy way" experience.
The guy I referenced was doing nothing more than sitting, passively resisting the police. From what I understand he was an asshole about it, but I greatly object to the notion that ANY Ghandi-style passive resistence should be met with tazers (which are, as you may or may not be aware, potentially lethal weapons.)
But I do know that letting people simply get away with being shitty doesn't sit right with me.
You're missing the point. The woman DIDN'T get away with it--she was charged with battery. If my friend had been a police officer instead of a fry cook, it would have carried an even harsher sentence.
If you want to talk about prison reform, that's something else entirely. I do not believe that prisoners should be able to interact amongst themselves at all, nor do I believe in any prison luxuries (including non-educational televsion/books/magazines, cigarettes, etc.), nor do I believe that ANYONE convicted of a felony (or a repeat misdemeanor offender) should EVER be released without performing an extended work-release program and at least making a genuine effort to appear to be reformed. "Paying their debt" be damned; they shouldn't EVER be released if the parole board has any reasonable suspicion whatsoever that they will commit more crimes.
So you see, I'm not a soft-hearted liberal at all--I just do not believe in vigilante justice. You would have me take the cop at his word that the suspect deserved it--sorry, but NO human is that trustworthy. Cops are cops--they aren't judges or juries. I grant you that judges and juries and the general public at large probably don't respect just how tough it is being a cop, but I have already outlined how and why this should not be an excuse. If it's really that much of a dirty and nasty job, let's just pay 'em more. Hell, I'll take the occasional insult and even the occasional punch or kick *without* overreacting if they'll pay me $100,000/year to do it.
If someone punches a cop, they are guilty of battery on a law enforcement officer, and the extra punishment incurred therein should be sufficient justice. If you disagree, then lobby to change the law, or change our prison philosophy. Cops punishing assholes on their own, outside of the courtroom ISN'T the answer. Not only are they biased against they criminals, but they're biased in favor of themselves--as this story proves, far too many cops (and perhaps DAs as well?) are assholes themselves.
Uhm, I would say yes, he was trying to "get away" with it.... You see, they are in seperate counties and seperated by nearly 15 miles (with Acworth between the two). So more than likley he was either coming or going home from work which wouldn't surprise me as it's not uncommon for police here to take their vehicles home with them. So I highly doubt he was trying to catch up to a drunk driver, shadowing another vehicle, etc. He might have been picking/dropping off a prisoner, but even that I highly doubt as it would have been taken care of by Cobb County Sheriff's Dept. Which takes us back to, he was probably going to or coming from work. And whats odd about Kennesaw is you are more likley to see Kennesaw State University Police vs. Kennesaw city police. (Kennesaw is a small 1 runway airport, a university and a "mountain" that's around 500 feet tall)
Some actual information there. And the gun law article is hilarious.
Actually, it's not Canada... the solution to a corrupt and oppressive government is actually revolution, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. It's the reason we have the 2nd amendment, so that we might rise up and overtake them by force if needed.
Of course, I'm sure you were trying to be funny, that's what the moderators thought; I didn't.
Democrats and Republicans are like AIDS and Cancer, I want neither!
How many recent senators, representatives, or presidents can you name that ever in their life worked at a resteraunt or doing manual labor to put themselves through college?
Bill clinton comes to mind. Of course, everybody seems to hate him - son of a travelling salesman who died before his birth, born to no legacy in particular.
The man may have had a loser father, but he never worked a manual labor job in his life. Scholarships through school, followed by internships for politicians, then right into politics himself. He had to work hard for what he got, but he sure as hell ain't any sort of "common man". Harry Truman was probably the last president who spent any substantial period of his life at hard physical labor-- working the family farm from age 12-22, back in 1906 when farm work was really hard.If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Zimbardo, Milgram, Arendt, and Acton should be a mandatory part of education. Our problem is optimism. Everyone wants to think that people aren't that bad. Also, we like to dismiss a bad cop as a single bad apple, not interpret his actions as evidence that power corrupts even good people. We like to see people as identifiably good or identifiably bad, and someone who's a good person the vast majority of the time but then a monster when he gets the chance to indulge his power with impunity doesn't fit well into that binary worldview.
I don't really care about the physical labor part - who cares if you work a crap job washing dishes or get a scholarship? The point is common roots.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
True true I didn't read your post it's 00:00. But in the end it says when you want help you wont get any. I think all of us have our opinion and mine is that Law Enforcement is for after something happens and it is blatently obvious.
My fathers brand new car got hit by some pickup truck at Walmart and the cops told him that He did it. And walmart told my dad the cameras they have outside are fake.
Isnt that nice.
In a dump truck.
She'll stop doing it.
Thanks so much I had no idea this was written. Not that I want to do anything about it right now. I think that we should get rid of Law Enforcement. Everytime someone's got somethin against a cop this is what happens. No dignity...
This seems a little extremist. Sure, the cop reacted very poorly, but plenty of civilians also decide to speed when they think nobody is looking. Are they on a "power trip"? No. The cop wasn't necessarily on a power trip so much as doing something that plenty of other people, cops or otherwise, decide to do on occasion. What he did was just as wrong as any other person speeding down a street at night, probably even more so given that he was on the roads to protect and uphold the laws he was breaking. The issue is the fact that he retaliated with such anger against something I'm sure he figured he was relatively immune to, which was the concept of being punished for breaking laws.
Yes, yes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Good god man, your little rant seems slightly psychotic. Most of your silly, conspiracy-theory rambling isn't even worth addressing. But I will say this: Your tirade on "What you do on your property" is completely irrelevant. The cop's application for an arrest warrant for stalking was pursuant to the couple's constant emailing, not the 'light rays' that bounced off his car.
It depends. Are they locked up properly when not in use? Do you have their serial numbers recorded so that the police can seize them when they catch the asshat(s) who stole your guns?
http://outcampaign.org/
you mean those guys who serve a tiny portion of the market? You should read up on the conditions a capitalistic system needs to work properly.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
But a lot to do with abusing showing how easily someone will abuse a helpless person.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Yeah, but what I'm looking for is someone who can relate to normal people. If your stepdad owns a car dealership in Arkansas, you probably party with the kids from the local HS, while BushCo is living it up in some prep school and getting their dad to make their draft notice disappear.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Right. Businesses fold, and others open up, but capitalism's broken? Ok. Now if you're talking about social security, that's a different thing. You can have unregulated capitalism and a social safety net (minimum income) at the same time; well, you could, and I'd like that.
If something is broken, it's the US legal system and lots of US legislation (because small players can't afford protection against the big players), which has NOTHING to do with capitalism; on the contrary, the US are turning from capitalism to corporatism (like the fascist Mussolini system). The countries with the highest living standards are all relatively free market economies. Socialist countries like Cuba or most of South America just don't make progress out of poverty.
If you say that raising prices makes for a better profit: yes, but as long as people are happy with that, that's ok. They value the offering above the cost of input factors, so the business serves a purpose (obviously, if it has clients!).
But anybody can just choose to underbid the cartel and gain customers that way. Here in Germany we have lots of expensive brand stuff, but we also have grocery stores that sell really cheap, but mostly really good, food. It works great for them (the two richest Germans founded one of those grocery chains; they're now billionaires I think), and it's great for students like me who want to save.
So while a market can have a cartel, in practice no cartel or "natural" (i.e. not state-enforced) monopoly can hold for a long time. If a natural monopoly exists for a while, that's because it's efficient (more efficient than a second vendor would be).
I think you and your wife missed something fundamental from the GP. First, he did not talk about making complaints. Making complaints is a good idea, but sometimes it doesn't work, just as it did not work in your case. The GP mentioned lawsuits. These should certainly be reserved for cases in which the complaints fail, but if complaints have failed, especially as drastically as they did in your case, then lawsuits really are a very good option. Second, the GP said something about getting things changed yourself, with a little help from your friends. General public outcry is usually listened to by the government. One or two people are easy to either ignore or to shut up. You probably would have done better by getting friendly with your neighbors and getting them to also complain (or file suit). If your neighbors didn't have any problem with what was happening, then you would be best served by getting new neighbors, that is, moving.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
But a counter-threat "I'll get my lawyer involved on this if you continue to threaten me" might be quite effective. They know (unless they're stupider than most) that threatening you is wrong. Letting them know that you're willing to "tell the teacher on them" might just get them to stop.
Furthermore, you don't have to convince the police officer or the mayor of anything. You just need to have a lawyer that can convince a judge and/or a jury. Completely different matter.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
You don't. Nor should you. This is not tyranny, this is the price we pay for living in a democratic society. Say that cops couldn't stop speeders in front of your house, how would you feel when a six year old gets hit by a speeder in front of your house? Say you get stuck by a drunk in front of someone elses house who decided that it was their egotistic duty to inflict their whim on others?
The other night I was at an old friends baby shower, and someone got murdered down the road, meaning the helicopters were out in force, and flying low. Do I really have the right that they were intruding in my air space, with their sound waves infringing on my property, not to mention their high density photons casting a pale on our late night BBQ? Sure it was annoying, but I'd rather have it than not.
It entirely depends upon how that organisation goes about its business. For example does the organisation use force to achieve its ends?
For example a shop doesn't force me to buy anything it sells, its my choice, I buy something we both benifit (otherwise why would i buy what they are selling or why would I sell my money to them for their products).
On the other hand a government organization is funded using tax, a forced payment, if you disagree try not paying your tax's and then see if is a forced payment. If tax is used one person benifits at the cost of another. If everyone benifited in proportion to the tax they paid then it would be pointless having tax. So its not about anecdotes its about first principles.
Judge asked what experience he had driving at high speeds.
Ehehe. 90 mph and high speed ? Around here, that would make you an annoying, slow moving obstacle to quite a number of drivers. Try 130 mph, and then we're talking high speed. And there'll still be cars behind you trying to pass occasionally.
And still, physics don't change, neither does your reaction time. Going 47 mph in a 30 mph zone doesn't require "tactical driving" or any such BS, but the ability to stop when little Jimmy runs out of the driveway. No amount of training is going to help you when "reaction time (~1 second) + time required to decelerate to a stop" is larger than "Time until impact".
What the fuck has this got to do with our rights online? I seriously wanna know!!! Someone seems to be confusing "Your Rights Online" with "Those in power are trying to destroy our rights again!" although I can see why :)
Fortunately, because they were able to publicize his actions, they seem to be winning the PR war much more effectively than if he'd just done the right thing, and now he's been embarassed and presumably pressured by the town government or his bosses into backing down from his threat as well as having to drive slow for a while.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Several times? While not physically resisting?
To me, that goes beyond reasonable force and strays into the territory of 'torture'. And I hope to hell I have the guts to intervene if it ever happens in front of me.
Well, of course you will have to get a good distributor (an independent one).
If you are cheaper than the cartel guys, you won't have the same margins, but you can always take alternative distribution channels. And I'm pretty sure most markets (in this case, grocery stores) will gladly carry your new brand if it's reasonably cheap, look good and has good quality. Because that'll make people favor their store above another store that doesn't carry that brand.
It's not easy, but generally possible. If there's no state intervention that shuts down honest competition, a cartel isn't generally too sustainable, long-term.
All of these posts suggesting 'move somewhere else' seem to be missing the point, and also that mindset contributes to the current problem.
Well, it is how the USA got started... Don't try to fix the problem, just move away.
So what are you waiting for? Run for office already! Get off the sidelines and into the game.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Won't somebody think about Young Sebastion?
The next time you see a cop fly by without his lights on, call it in to 911 as a drunk driver who almost creamed the car in front of you or was wilding tailgating the car in front of his (or whatever was the case when he was breaking the law). When they ask for your location on the highway and the cars license plate, give them the police car's number. IA doesn't take too kindly of reports of cops drunk on duty.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
I would argue that a cartel becomes more and more self-sustaining as it exists, as it amasses power and wealth and creates a web of dependencies.
Also, the cartel will use the means that are at its disposal to suppress the competition. Price dumping, lawsuits, all that stuff.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Unfortunately real democracy exists only on this level, especially in the USA, but in some way also in other countries. On "macroscopic" level there are only democrats and republicans. True oligarchy, USA is aristocratic country. (lesser parties can't even get ONE candidate into a parliament without having (relative) majority of votes in big pieces of US land, isn't that bad enough?)
Furthermore, responsible speeding is the kind of thing that is stimulated in Germany. When you have the space and the condition of the road is good enough, do your 150 mph thing, but speed next to a construction site and you get your speeding ticket at a double fee. And it works, apparently, not more accidents here than in the neighbouring countries that do have speed limits. The current focus of the law enforcement is on 'draengler', the people who drive up too closely behind the person driving in front, because actions like that have much more effect on accidents than just plain speeding.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
Except for my carry piece they're locked up in a safe that takes special equipment to move. And yes, I have SNs.
I don't read AC A human right
Determining the meaning of Privacy is also another good example of judges interpreting what isn't literally written.
The problem with interpreting this loosly is you also get decisions like Kelo v. City of New London. I'm sorry, but judges getting creative in their interpretations is a band-aid, not a fix. The fix is to fix the problem in the law or constitution.
Otherwise the only limit to government or the judges is their creativity in interpreting the constitution in new-speak. You know, the one where growing crops on your own land and feeding it to animals owned by you on the same land is interstate commerce.
I don't read AC A human right
Still, there's a lot of hate for the cameras in many areas. I've heard that they're going to place second cameras to catch the vandals who're taking out the speed cameras in Ireland. Or was it Scotland? My solution to that - Wear a mask.
Everybody knows that law enforcement can find you based on a single crappy analog recording of your back by extrapolating the reflection of your shoelaces in the window reflection behind you and tracing it back to a single batch sold at some obscure shop with an easily harassed salesman, don't you watch shows like CSI?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
A review board sounds good unless you understand how governments or any large organization works. In order to be "fair", they need to establish metrics that are used to gauge the people. Otherwise, they will not be able to improve their behavior. Once those metrics are determined, people will work towards the metrics. You can't reward people for serving the best interests of justice because that requires more information than anyone has. Whatever metrics you define, people will maximize those particular parts of their job to the exclusion of serving justice. It's called playing the system, and most people are going to do it.
Whether you focus on rewards or punishment, it doesn't matter. You're treating everyone like a bunch of children who need to be told exactly what to do. They will respond in kind. While it would be nice to believe people will be altruistic, serving the public good, that's not supported by the data.
But privatization would be a boon to law enforcement!
Imagine how productive they could be if they didn't have to spend a disproportionate amount of time on rare cases like murder, and could focus on traffic enforcement and copyright violations. Those are the kinds of activities that are pure profit centers. A well run government should be profitable.
Only whack jobs would think that a government should be of the people, by the people and for the people. Sensible people know that the role of government is to increase shareholder value at any cost to civil liberties. After all, the US Dollars that many of us know and love are just shares in the government. That should be obvious, seeing how many shares you need to fork over to buy enough politicians to get anything done. =)
Lets not forget the 2nd Amendment... and yes, there has been armed revolt against local law enforcement. http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
The fact that the cop dropped his application for a warrant against them shows that he knows that it was wrong and possibly illegal. It was an attempt to intimidate the couple, illegal in itself and doubly wrong when it's someone that we charge with protecting the peace. He should be suspended, if not fired, for this. The speeding? Give him a ticket, show that no one is above the law. The attempt to intimidate citizens into not complaining? That should get him off the force.
I have a problem with that.
There are a lot of people who are a net drain to our society and need to be removed. Please shoot someone who has it coming. If you're in an area with a corrupt law enforcement organization, they can probably provide you with a list of people who "attacked you and forced you to defend yourself using the minimum amount of force needed to stop the attack, in full compliance with the law." =)
Most of mine are in a gun safe, but none of those have trigger/bolt locks installed so depending on where a person lives they may or may not be properly locked up. There are a few scattered around my house. I live in a rural area so you never know when a coyote or something might be wandering around outside and there will be no time to fumble with any kind of gun lock.
Do you have their serial numbers recorded so that the police can seize them when they catch the asshat(s) who stole your guns?I don't understand the mentality that places some portion of the blame on me for not locking up my possessions against someone stealing them.
The likelihood of them being stolen is pretty low and the likelihood of the police actually finding them if they are is too small to even bother considering. But I do have the serial numbers recorded (and backed up!), but mostly because I am a geek and I enjoyed building the database. And my insurance company required them to extend my policy.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
I went to visit him, and he drove me around when we went out. Even off duty, he drove like a speed demon. I asked him what happens if he got pulled over for speeding. He said he simply shows the cop his police identification, and the cop will let him go about his way. So there you have it, he speeds because he can, not because he is on some evil power trip. Would you speed if you know you wouldn't get a ticket? I sure would. Hell, I still speed regardless.
... or, they could just not break the law. Why do you insist on excusing it?
A lot of people are jumping on you for this, and honestly, they're right. Your friend is a bad cop. He willingly breaks the law, endangering the public, because he can. The cops who pull him over then let him go are bad cops too. They're selectively enforcing the law, not for any rational reason, but because they can protect "their own".
Just remember, if we force police to pull themselves over, we are forcing them to work against each other.
Then go vertical integration.
Besides, with time a cartel becomes less and less innovative/efficient, for lack of competition, so it gets easier.
Got any real-world examples of cartels that were built without help of government (so no railway, phone, gas, water...), where there actually is no competition?
A cop is better trained in tactical driving than the average citizen.
True; and the instant he has the blue flashing lights on, almost none of the traffic laws apply to him. John Q. Citizen with his home radar gun could catch him doing 175 MPH, and wouldn't be able to complain worth squat. (Yes, there are cop cars that will go that fast. I think it was Indiana where a group of cops sucessfully bid at auction on a Lamborghini seized from a drug dealer, donated it, and got the department to give it the standard paint job and light bars.)
However, until those lights go on, they're bound by the law like anyone else. One of the local cops is widely considered an asshole, because unless he has something urgent, he'll ticket anyone for any offense he sees. A black acquaintance of mine tried claiming Officer Asshole issuing him a jaywalking ticket because he was a racist to convince the judge to throw it out on equal protection grounds. Bad move (see Lincoln on pro se). The judge and DA both snickered; the Judge told him that in the cop's first week on the job, he had ticketed the DA for speeding, and the judge for making an illegal right on red. It took three weeks before he had ticketed his boss for running a stop sign... in a cop car with, yes, no lights flashing.
Having had dealings with some other cops on the force, I'm unhappy to say they mainly want a quiet job and to preserve the peace; Officer Asshole believes it is important to be seen to uphold the law as well. I like him, myself... but am careful to check for him as well as for traffic before jaywalking. =)
Come court day bob told the judge what happened and that his was the only reasonable and prudent course of action. Judge asked what experience he had driving at high speeds. Reply? Pursuit instructor and EOD officer for HM Army and MI6 back home in England.
IAmNotALawyer, but my guess is that the judge realized this guy effectively qualified as an Expert Witness on his own behalf. Credible and hard-to-impeach expert eyewitness, unavoidable reasonable doubt, case dismissed.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
We told you to leave this alone, we still know who you are and where you live!
This logic really doesn't follow. There is absolutely no way the police can be visible to every driver at every time. Therefore the police have to do something else other than be visible to every driver. The most obvious is to make every driver believe there's a serious risk that there may be an officer looking at them.
How, exactly, do you do that by making all cops visible? If you have a policy of making the police completely visible at all times, then a motorist will know when there's no cop looking at him.
Hiding is a perfectly legitimate means of traffic enforcement. It provides a deterent. If you have so many cops that you don't need to hide to enforce traffic laws, then arguably there's a much bigger civil liberties issue than anyone could possibly imagine.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This is a wonderful example. The Police Dept that is trumping up "stalking" will have lots of questions from lots of skeptical people. Including other LE.
Actually, because this can happen, it must given enough chances. And 300M people is a lot of chances. This has probably has happened dozens of times elsewhere, but in most cases, the PD made amends. In this case, they didn't, so it's news.
I'm not at all surprised at the trumping-up. Poor LE (already in evidence) have trouble seeing in other than black-and-white (the car color is ironic). Since something bad happened, someone was at fault. It wasn't them, so what did the others do? Find something, anything! Better PDs would have just admitted fault.
There is another alternative in such cases.
Here, it seems the cop may also have been trying to stop the e-mail he was getting. (Not technical enough to set up email filter rules, I guess.) But assume that wasn't the case. Besides going to the state police, FBI, or whatever other higher authority, there's another option.
This is a republic: Run for DA. In almost all juristictions below the federal level, it's an elected position. The only qualification is getting elected; being a lawyer makes it easier to convince the public to vote for you, but it isn't required. Run on a platform with doing something about cops who act above the law as the main plank of your platform. If you win, you're now in a position to DO something about it — impanel a grand jury, or take heed to all citizen arrests of cops. If you lose — well, you'll at least have raised public consciousness, and the cops may back off... or start giving you enough tickets to put together a serious federal case against the department.
But win or lose, don't ever drive more than 5 MPH over the speed limit in that state ever again.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
False accusations are no laughing matter. You shouldn't expect to be able to drop an accusation and walk away easily. How about if I accused someone of stalking me, then word gets out, he loses his job, and then just before trial, "oops, just kidding!"
That's not how it's supposed to work. And these were police officers abusing their trust, not some jealous bitter woman trying to snare an ex.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Actually no, they did use a semi-automatic weapon.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
No physics don't change, training does.
A cop is better trained in tactical driving than the average citizen. You may be a good driver, but it is fairly improbable that you have the requisite training to make you safer at speeds higher than the average speed of traffic around you (which *should* be at the posted limit).
Ok, let's say I agree that cops are somehow better trained to drive faster. Then let's factor in that the cop is in the US is probably driving a Crown Vic or some other enormous American land yacht, hardly a car that handles well, and I drive a roadster that can pull almost 1g on a skidpad, has better brakes and probably accelerates better. Let's also factor in reaction time.
Can you still justify a cop driving almost 20 over, which is a serious offense where I live?
Oderint dum metuant
With time, a cartel amasses enough cash reserves to price-dump any potential competitor out of existence.
Got any real-world examples of cartels that were built without help of government (so no railway, phone, gas, water...), where there actually is no competition?
Medieval guilds.
A certain diamond mining company.
There aren't that many contemporary examples thanks to antitrust laws.
No I can not. Never did. If you read the whole post I said: I don't condone that they would speed when off duty, and I think they should get a mark for it or some such
Around the fourth line depending on your screen resolution. The assumption of course is that when on-duty they would only speed when their priority lights are on.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
total information to the customer
That's not a ground rule of capitalism. Information has a cost, and the market will efficiently allocate it just as it will any other scarce resource.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I see the taser as a weapon designed to be used in the place of a gun in a situation where a gun would otherwise have to be used
You want to bring a taser to a gun fight? Idiot.
I never bought the story that one of them shoplifted it. I have been in some pretty raggedy gun shops, and my misspent youth taught me some things about theft, but I have never felt like I could shove an AR down my pants and get out the door.
Maybe what would be most helpful would be to actually enforce existing laws. Maybe even wipe a bunch of them away and concentrate on the important ones. That applies to nearly everything, not just firearms related stuff.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
The problem with having laws is that most people are not familiar with them and don't understand the system. People who do are able to bully those who don't understand. This officer is doing just that bullying people. He is trying to use his knowledge of the system against folks that don't. I don't believe he had intention of having it go to court. He just wanted to shut up the people he, and his station, feel are pests. They are probably pests that most of use would not like having as neighbors. I bet they where calling the station all the time complaining about there neighbors speeding. There is a bit more background I bet then just this story. That said the tactic the police used to shut them up was not appropriate or just. It probably backfired on them, since if it goes to a judge it will be dismissed. Judges lucky still have the ability to exercise judgment in most areas of the law. Consider this next time you hear someone pushing of strict minimum sentence rules. Sadly the people who get hurt most often by this bullying are those that are quite citizens. Slumlords and such often use the laws against people. I took a minor in law just so I would not be totally ignorant of the law. I don't expect most to do so but it would be nice to see more high schools have a required class. I personally think it is more valuable then a sex ed class. (least the one I was forced to take)
Thanks for your timely reply.
You wrote:
And tag the parent's post as:
* wishful
* diluted
* stupid (because he's never lived under fascism nor any other repressive government and he calls this government so)
* insulting (to those who have lived under such governments)
You describe the parent post as stupid because you assert that the poster has "never lived under fascism nor any other repressive government and he calls this government so."
In the interest of reasoned debate, would you please provide some evidence to support your assertion that :
1. I have never lived under fascism
2. Nor any other repressive government
3. The post is insulting to those who have lived under such governments..
4. The government is NOT fascist.
I look forward to your rebuttal.
Patriotically,
K. Trout
How can it be stalking if they never left their house?
Of course! What town doesn't have a law against that on the books?
- Well, most don't have a law explicitly forbidding it - but usually the local sodomy laws are broad enough that you can charge them under those.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
For those that are too lazy to read either article, it seems that they were also emailing the officer in question about his speeding and he wanted some kind of court order to prevent them from continuing to email them. Neither article clearly specifies what exactly the "stalking" was referring to: the actual recording of the speeding event, or the constant emails he received from them (or perhaps both).
From what I read, the Stipples where doing a stupid thing. Em-ailing/spamming the cop in question about his speeding. That isn't what they should have done. They should have called their local police department and asked to speak to their on duty supervisor and/or their chief of police. He/she should listen and take their complait and start an IA on the police person in question. Police like going through "their chain of command" if you complain to the supervisor and the behavior isn't corrected, then you complain to the chief of police. The chief of police will listen to the complaint and if they side with you, will come down either like the wraith of god on that one officer or more likely issue new general orders/policy statements that the next police person that is reported by a citizen for speeding toward a non-emergency incident will be in trouble. The news article didn't make clear if the Stipples ever complained to the supervisors. It sounded from that source like they just repeatedly e-mailed the single cop that was speeding infront of their house. That's just the wrong way to do get a policy change made.
That is where the problem is. We have enough gun control law.. well more than enough
laws on the books. There is NO need whatever to add more laws. The problem there is the
government would have to admit they are wrong about guns and that personal ownership was ok.
Just because I do not like guns does not mean you cannot own a gun. Sheesh if that thought wasn't true then you could apply it to anything. I do not like RAP music therefore you cannot listen to it either, just as an example.
The original framers of the Bill of Rights in many instances said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was for ALL CITIZENS. Why do people have to twist and convolute this statement?
Now back to our topic.....
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF
All the same, I know someone who was T-boned by an officer, who at around 1:30am figured he'd gain right-of-way at a 2-way stop by flipping his lights on long enough to cross the intersection. Fortunately for my friend, there was a witness to the incident, because the cop was insisting that his lights were on the whole time.
That'll learn ya.
Funny comment until you read about someone like Keith Henson who fled to Canada and was still hounded after he got there.
... /. for about a year. I see that nothing has changed. Why does the couple have to appear before the magistrate? Because the city wants to prosecute? Nope. Because the police department is pissed off and wants to make an example out of them? Nope. Because the officer is an ass and filed a complaint? Yep. It's just a "he said, she said" thing. Oh, and the couple appears to have sent the officer an inordinate number of emails, too.
Yeah, another completely misinterpreted summary, followed by pages of inane and mostly nontopical comments. I'm outta here again.
-h-
Hm, that factory could produce for other grocery stores than Aldi, couldn't they?
;-)
Sure, if there's basically only one large buyer, they can dictate your prices (like WalMart for Chinese cheap stuff). That's when it makes sense to sell to different stores (perhaps under different brands, as many stores have house-brands).
But if you're the cheapest producer, you also have some leverage. After all the cheap stores like Aldi also depend on you.
And as long as they're profitable, everything's fine. If they can't be profitable, that's a sign of the market, that they're too inefficient -> other companies (that already produce that stuff) should increase their output instead. Yeah, economic Darwinism is hard
I have a Hot Wheels radar gun,a r/dp/B000EHLB0M
http://www.amazon.com/Mattel-J2358-Hot-Wheels-Rad
-Darkshadow (There was a thing called Heaven; but all the same they used to drink enormous quantities of alcohol.)
Just because I do not like guns does not mean you cannot own a gun. Sheesh if that thought wasn't true then you could apply it to anything. I do not like RAP music therefore you cannot listen to it either, just as an example. So many people play rap music into the air to celebrate, they never think where the music will land... Try harder next time.
Blame Canada!!
Excellent.
http://outcampaign.org/
It's not so much to prevent them being stolen as it is to prevent a child or a drunken adult (or a drunken child, I guess) from hurting himself or others with firearms that are laying around.
The likelihood of them being stolen is pretty low and the likelihood of the police actually finding them if they are is too small to even bother considering.Unlikely to be stolen? Perhaps. Unlikely to be found by police? Not true (on a large scale, anyway). Often it's the same fools who are being arrested by the police for other crimes, and the cops "know" their guns are stolen, but since they can't prove it (because the guns weren't reported stolen) the cops have to give them their stolen guns back when they're released.
But I do have the serial numbers recorded (and backed up!), but mostly because I am a geek and I enjoyed building the database. And my insurance company required them to extend my policy.Excellent.
http://outcampaign.org/
>> I must point out that most of my experience with
>> police has NOT been when I was doing something wrong.
> You are being hypocritical
No, I'm being 100% factual, literal... I don't know else how to say it. I'm not saying "he arrested me for no good reason!" I mean, like, I'm in a 7-11 and some cops come in. Or I'm at the mall, or the movies, or in any other public space, and cops arrive--not because of a disturbance, they're just there because they're there. *That's* what I mean. I've never been arrested, held, or even questioned by police. All I've ever done is get the occasional parking or speeding ticket. No DUIs, no accidents, not even a ticket for running a stop sign or red light. Just speeding, like 90% of the population does 90% of the time. Even so, when I get tickets, I don't have a magical badge I can wave to make the ticket go away, I just accept my fate... same as any civilian, or off-duty cop, should do.
> If you want cops to follow the laws better, than try to get policies
> implemented that punish them for breaking the law, because
> right now, there aren't that many.
We DO have policies. They're called LAWS. Police are exempt from some laws in the course of their duties--they can park in red zones, speed, and shoot people, to name just a few--but they are NOT exempt 100% of the time. An off-duty cop who speeds for no good reason should be ticketable just like the rest of us are.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Now anyone that sees someone breaking the law and reports that to the police is definitely a stalker!
The last thing I wanted to do was mis-represent the facts in the case.
Method of processing duck feet
> Policies are going to have to get implemented if you want to see cops
> following the traffic laws without sirens. People aren't going to solve
> this problem by bitching about cops and calling them assholes.
Good idea. Maybe as the first step towards getting policies changed, they could calmly, legally gather evidence to prove that there is a reason that these policies should exist, perhaps by legally videotaping cops while they're speeding... hmm, I think I read about someone doing that recently. IIRC, it didn't turn out too well. And they didn't even call the cops assholes.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
problem with your reasoning : the market does not work. over 90% of the market is owned by supermarkets, and they can dictate the market when there is a slight overproduction. They force you to sign contracts with ridiculously small margins, or else you're out of business.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
one more
c) they would enforce the law "strictly". None of this, let it go for a few miles over the limit. The limit is just that, "the limit". It you can safely go faster, then raise the damn limit. The current system just encourages selective enforcement of the law. Selective enforcement begets (unintended) racial profiling.
Seems things could be a little better with consistent and clear enforcement of the laws. And if it turns out that a law sucks, "repeal it". Lets stop leaving sucky laws on the books just to be available for selective enforcement.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
I had a cop do this to me in Florida when I was 17.
Out in a back-woods road, and this guy is tailgating with the highbeams.
I tapped the brake to flash the lights, no reaction.
I waited a minute and did it again.
after the third time, I just slammed the brakes.
He turns on his blue lights a I pull over, he jumps out of his car yelling and screaming.
I'm like, dude, "a deer jumped in front of me, you probably couldn't see it because you were tailgating".
Then he has the nerve to say he was tailgating because he saw me swerve a few miles back. As if that makes any kind of sense. If I'm swerving pull me over, don't tailgate. You are increasing public danger by leaving me on the road.
In the end the a** got back in his car and left.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Ah, so your "market doesn't work" means it doesn't do what you'd like the market to do...
I'm sorry to say that you totally misunderstand the concept of a market economy. If a business can't profitably produce something (i.e. there is nobody out there who is fine paying more for the output than the inputs cost on the market), then it's good and efficient that that shop folds. If everybody buys their stuff somewhere else, then that's because they prefer it. The economy has no place for the inefficient company in that case. If anybody cares, they can buy there.
Yes, jobs and businesses close, and others open. That's how it goes. Overall, rising unemployment would signal that workers can be had cheap, so that's a good moment to go hiring. Unfortunately, for various reasons the job market isn't too great right now, but I won't discuss that here.
If the police serve me badly, what can I do?
SBJA
Soap
Ballot
Jury
Ammo
Yes, however people in the police force have self selected to become these type of people. There is something in them that needs the validation of having authority over others.
So imagine how much worse the experiment would turn out (as it sometimes does IRL) with such a self selected group...
Guess you've never heard of a tape recorder, before.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
That's great in theory, but Constitutional Amendments are hard to enact by design, and even a minority can hold up crucially important reform for many, many years while victims suffer greatly. Article VII still says: "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." It costs the State far more than $40 (the amount required to pay off both the plaintiff and the defendant) to assemble a jury!
In fact, the favorite Slashdot topic of copyright is an example. Apparently, Congress extending copyrights retroactively every twenty years would not violate the Constitutional wording of "limited times." This is contradictory to what a lot of people think copyrights are for, but it's not clearly wrong when you only look at the words on the paper.
I would be all for strict constructionism if the laws were actually comprehensive and very well written, but do look at the cases that will be overturned, and consider the quality of the legislature.
After reading the article, it seems that the officer's complaint of stalking was due to the couple's incessant emails - not for tattling on him to his superiors.
So: the only thing that the market enforces: rich get richer, poor get poorer. You better be born rich.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
"This is probably the best comment I've read this whole article."
Because you're easily impressed, have screwed up values, and have to *become* something in order to solve it? Your inane sentimentality is that you have to be something in order to fully understand it or solve it?
Absurd. I dislike health care in the US. I have to become part of the health profession in order to demand better health care?
I have to have a job exported overseas before I identify that as a solution?
I have to experience the full weight of global warming before I consider that the theory may be correct?
Certainly, maybe I can do *more* if I were in the health care system or understand outsourcing better if I were directly harmed by it, but I think it's hardly a necessity or even a desire characteristic.
But, in your words, the best comment/action is to become part of the corruption? No thanks. People outside looking in often have a better perspective of reasonableness.
Mr. Bigglesworth!
if he ever gets in to an accident, and hurts anyone, or worse, kills someone while speeding, he is not going to get a "walk" for it.
I used to believe you up until the last couple months because I was watching the news down here in the Phoenix area and was SHOCKED by what I saw on the news. I believe last year an officer (under the influence mind you) struck and killed an innocent person and all that became of it was a fine and a SPEEDING TICKET. The officer didn't even have the dignity to show up to court for the final judgement. From what I got out of the story the officer had been at a bar (off duty I think) and left and then there was a call for officer assistance (the truthfullness of this was under scrutiny) and he happened to be nearby so he decided to try and get over to help but in the process ended up hitting some young man while travelling over 20mph (maybe more) over the speed limit. I think it was a 30mph zone.
Of course his fellow officers never gave him any field sobriety tests or anything like that although there were witnesses who saw him consuming alcohol at the bar right before the accident. Now you tell me how likely would it be for ANYONE besides an officer to leave a bar and have been drinking (and have the officers who arrive at the scene know this), hit and kill someone while excessively speeding, then not be asked to take any field sobriety tests or submit to a breathalyzer/blood alcohol content test, AND then only end up getting a fine for under $1000 and a SPEEDING TICKET? Not even a reckless driving ticket or manslaughter charge. That is just insane.
The family was rightfully very distraught over the outcome and they said what hurt them even worse was that the officer didn't even show up to the final court date. The officer KILLED somebody but still couldn't find the time to show up to court, it was like he was just treating it as a everyday, normal traffic offense.
After seeing that while I still respect officers and believe the majority of them really want to help the public I do not believe that they don't shield each other and literally can get away with murder. The do not just let fellow officers speed, they let them speed while drinking and kill people.
I wish I could quickly find a source to link to but I don't have the time since I am at work and my lunch break is now over. I did see this on the 6 o'clock news in the last 2 months so it is very real, if someone else can dig up a link that would be great.
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
"It's important to know the difference between not trusting authority and distrusting authority."
Do you even know that difference? Seems to me you put trust in something you have little or no experience with yourself; iow, your support is simply a woeful and total absence of evidence, the absent anecdote if you will, which is so easy to put up and defend because it's a non-existent argument.
Where exactly is your control, your evidence, your tipping point that police do more good than harm? There are entire societies out there that have no police. Civilization itself largely was begotten without police. Early United States history shows there were no police forces early on, for several decades in fact, and when they did come about much like recognized and organized gangs, not to mention often caused more harm than good.
It is you who seems to have a deep seated trust in the police because you have little or no direct experience with them yourself. In my area of Pennsylvania, the local cops lie, exaggerate, and talk to the magistrates privately prior to hearings; there are little to no checks on the police around here. The last place I was around, outside DC, the local Maryland police had *massive* issues with keeping their forces in check, even to the point that the officers were threatening people publicly in online forums.
I guess you didn't read the other posts. You know, the ones that made it clear that here in CA taping a phone conversation without prior consent by the other party is a criminal act that will give them an excuse to arrest you. Besides the fact that I never expected the police to threaten me, and once they did, I realized that this was a situation that I was just going to remove myself from. When people who have no reason to fear the law applying to them, and are well armed, threaten you, you don't make them do it again unless you are suicidal, and are willing to fight it out to the bitter end. I chose to sell my home and move to another city, as I wasn't willing to have me, or my family murdered.
no, I want to bring a taser to deal with a man wielding a big sword or an air rifle. With nothing between baton and gun, when the police find someone carrying a sword, they almost always end of having to shoot them and have managed to kill the swordsman in the process several times (which isn't strictly necessary since, to stop someone with a sword, you need only shoot their shins, stopping them advancing on you). With a taser you don't have to shoot the man with a sword - you stun him from 12 feet away and then take the sword, and nobody uses particularly lethal force.
FGD 135
That's makes much more sense. I still think that it should be used on people who are actively resisting (that college student was physically resisting arrest. passive resistance would be yelling like he did), and in the same category as pepper spray. If someone is willing to resist, they are likely going to respond with all the power they have available. Who knows that they may have? A taser ends it immediately, and is less damaging pepper spray or a nightstick.
Where I am I'd likely have to drive at least a hundred miles to find one. Them types tend to move out of my area.
I don't read AC A human right
This is like arguing that we shouldn't test because then they teach towards the test and not for education.
Thing is - you have a percentage of teachers who weren't effectivly teaching anything.
My idea was rather organic in intent. If you must come up with some sort of metrics, they're for that year. Shake it up every year. Besides, I was thinking more along the lines of how the higher medals are done in the military(when politics don't get involved). Pick a few outstanding individuals. Maybe the top 1-10%. Note that I'm not being exacting here. More can earn the reward if many 'stand up', fewer will if they don't. Same with the bad effects. No set percentage, but the board decides on the worst of the force, 'are they worth keeping?'.
I don't read AC A human right
The poliece department's actions were largly to be expected. Very few people are willing to bust their friends and co-workers.
If this is true, I guess this must be a difference between white-collar professionals and blue-collar workers like cops. As an engineer, I'd have no trouble at all busting any cow-orkers if they were actually doing anything illegal. I have no special loyalty to anyone I work with, and I certainly can't imagine having a level of loyalty to any coworkers that would bring me to violate the law for them. Heck, I never even associate with my coworkers outside of work, and from what I've seen in my 9 years in the profession, this is normal with all the other engineers I've worked with.
The SCOTUS long ago ruled that it is every citizen's right to record the actions of a public official in the performance of his public duties. The court's reasoing is that such citizens are acting in a journalistic capacity, doing exactly what the press is supposed to do: keeping government honest. What this couple did was not only legal, it was protected by the First Amendment. (Repeatedly emailing the cop afterward might be considered stalking, though.)
So word's already gotten out that you've implemented that plan. Good job. More communities need to be so fortunate. =)
You don't really need to trump up charges... they most likely don't have an FCC license... which you need to legally operate a radar gun