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.
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
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Its not always "because they can" or an "ego trip". My best friend is a State Police officer and in training they are told and taught that in certain situations you are supposed to speed. Now, in this instance of going through a neighborhood it does not apply. However, on regular and state highways (roads with more than one lane), police officers speed in order to catch speeders. You trail 200-500 feet behind them to clock their speed, then accelerate in for the kill. Believe it or not, this is considered safer than having an Officer attempt to clock someone from the side of the road then pull onto the highway from being stopped into traffic going 70mph. This is why you see police officer's speeding on multi-lane roads all the time. This isn't give an excuse for speeding in a neighborhood... I'm just saying that its not just because they can speed and get away with it, its part of the training.
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
Evidently not us.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
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.
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.
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 _ _ _ _ _.
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
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.
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
What was once true, is no longer so
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Never pass a cop.
sometimes, nothing.
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.
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.
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
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
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 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.
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?
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?
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!
The cop did.
cop drops complaint
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.
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).
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'
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> How many bloody noses, cuts, and scrapes would you inflict on the crowd of bystanders
> to save the noncooperative git the transient pain of the taser?
The few descriptions of the incident that I've read said that the student went limp (passive resistive) when the officers tried to use physical force to remove him; Thus the officers repeatedly telling him to "stand up" between tasings as seen in the video. The student's actions were not violent, the officers simply refused to carry him out as they were supposed to and instead used a taser to attempt to gain compliance.
As I see it, one or two taser hits likely would have been enough to make the student perfectly willing to leave, but the student's unwillingness or inability to stand up was in defiance of the officer's will, so the beating continued.
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.
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
The Fifth of November! The Fifth of November! Remember, Remember the fifth of November!
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?
Who the heck do you think you are, ruining a perfectly good libertarian rant with your real-world considerations?
Kythe
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
The police are in the business of putting criminals in jail, not inacting their own brand of physical justice. I'm not saying that every single combative action needs to be carefully mulled over--I'm just saying that when a woman is CLEARLY hurt and bleeding badly and in no state to hurt or threaten to hurt anyone, you do NOT need to go over and hurt her some more. You put her in jail--you let the justice system do what it's supposed to do. In the heat of the moment, sure, a cop can strike back, but by the time my friend realized she'd been hit the woman was already on the ground and out of reach. She would have had to gone outside of the building or thrown something at her or seomthing.
Similarly, that guy who was tazered and pepper sprayed for refusing to present his ID card in a college library was just being an asshole. There's no reason to tazer an asshole, and it was downright abusive (if not criminal) for them to do so. They're menat to ARREST law-breaking assholes. If they don't want to move, carry them. If they violently throw off your grip, THEN you spray and taze 'em. If they throw a punch, beat 'em until they go down (but not AFTER they go down.) If they draw a gun, blow their fucking heads off (but stop shooting if they drop the gun.) How hard is that to comprehend?
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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. =)
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.
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.
Actually no, they did use a semi-automatic weapon.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
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