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."
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
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?
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"?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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 _ _ _ _ _.
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.
Well, if by "catch" you mean "give him a ticket", then no, the civilian couple did not do that.
But if by "catch" you mean "show that the SOB was doing 17 over the limit on his way to Waffle House, then, I'd say "Yes", they managed to make their point.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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
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.
Of course, it's now completely moot...
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
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 a former law-enforcement professional, you should know that you have the right to use paragraphs. If you do not know how to or cannot afford them, paragraphs will be created for you. You have the right not to use rhetorical questions or other meaningless interrogatories in your diatribes. You have the right to utilize commas to offset interjections.
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.
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).
"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."
Wow! Mobile police offices - must need a lot of horsepower to tow that thing!
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
It doesn't matter whether or not they had a radar gun or a method to calculate the speed of passing objects. Did you read the post?
they caught a police office going 17MPH over the posted limit.
So whether or not the office was speeding is a non-issue. I'm pretty sure driving an entire police office along a residential street is illegal in some way.
+5, Truth
The Fifth of November! The Fifth of November! Remember, Remember the fifth of November!
Jesus Saves
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.
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.