Slashdot Mirror
Cops Play Wii During Undercover Drug Raid
An anonymous reader writes "Guns drawn, cops busted down the door of a suspected south Florida drug dealer, then proceeded to kick some ass on Wii bowling. A security cam captured some playing video games while others searched for drugs and weapons. Clearly they just misunderstood when they were told to search the house for Weed."
Monitored while on duty is fine. Off-duty, no way. Officers aren't slaves and they can have a personal life.
Hey, don't hate the player, hate the game.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Might have been able to pass it off as Physical training on the job.
Having been a police officer for five years, I can comment on this one. I support the job they do when it's done right, but this is completely unacceptable. These officers should be suspended for this. Unfortunately, this kind of stuff, and worse, happens every day. There are a few bad apples in every department. We need more whistle blowers out there.
This will be a good test of our juctice system (cough) to see if the drug dealers get a lesser sentence because of some completely un-related shenannigans. I'm not saying the officers shouldn't be reprimanded to acting unprofessionally but this should in no way affect a judge's decision as how to punch the criminals.
Loading...
a couple of police officers getting paid to goof off
This isn't like the library staff caught playing Rock Band. These were investigators at the scene of a drug raid playing a Wii owned by the person being arrested while evidence was being collected on the premesis. This could potentially be a pretty big problem. A defense lawyer could use this to their advantage when attempting to invalidate the evidence collected.
Which of the laws are ridiculous? I kind of like the laws against theft, murder, rape and other things.
Which part of smoking pot is the part that makes it worth criminalizing?
The part where we are a democratic country full of stuffy neo-puritans.
Statistically, a majority of Americans have tried pot.
Also, a majority of Americans are opposed to legalization.
Which means there are a significant number of assholes in this country who think it's perfectly fine if they use pot and get away with it, but YOU should go to jail if you get caught doing the same thing.
Most libertarian crackpots like me are painfully aware that "live and let live" is not actually a majority philosophy, and we've got an uphill battle to sell our political views to the rest of society.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
>Not only that, but anyone willing to ruin someone's life over a little pot (like these cops) has a serious lack of ethics.
The police are the enforcers of the law. It blows my mind that people blame the lowest guy on the ladder for laws and policies. Joe Cop isnt writing state and federal law. Considering you are in a democracy you are just as guilty as anyone else for these laws being in existance. Perhaps having a scapegoat makes you feel better about yourself, but youre 100% wrong to target the police on these matters.
If you ever got off your high horse and talked to some cops you might have many share the same attitudes you do.
What about some basic personal responsibility? If owning pot is such a legal nightmare that it can ruin your life if arrested, as you state, why dont these people move to countries where it is legal instead of pretending they have immunity and then blaming the police for getting caught?
This presents an interesting argument: in the vast majority of communities across the US, police officers are always considered "on-duty" ... that is, they are allowed to carry a concealed weapon, make arrests, etc. during "personal" hours. Since they are still exercising their powers, it seems that they should be monitored 24x7, even if "off duty".
Maybe they were on strike.
You know it makes sense, a little reminder from jointm1k.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The defending attorney simply claims that this proves the police were either poorly trained, or often deliberately went against training. Then the prosecution is caught in a forking argument where trying to prove the police aren't incompetent makes them look wilfully malicious instead, and vice versa. Anything else a cop says afterwards that relates to following procedures, why should the jury believe them?
Here, let me nudge your imagination. Under defense cross-exam, a police witness says "I took all the seized narcotics directly to the evidence room. I watched as the evidence locker custodian weighed the drugs, and logged the ticket showing that weight, and made sure he gave me a copy for the record book." The attorney simply asks "Is that standard procedure?". "Yes". The defense attorney than says "Are you sure you know standard procedure - Earlier, with the Wii, you indicated you didn't?.", and maybe makes closing remarks about how the police have flip-flopped on how well they follow procedure to where their testimony is 'deeply flawed'.
Alternately, the attorney asks "And do you always follow procedure?" knowing that the policeman in question has already admitted he didn't with the Wii, and is going to have to say "No." or perjure himself.
That last is one of the biggest advantages possible for the defense if they can get it. It's great to cross-examine witnesses who are constantly worried they are going to sink their careers, make their whole department look like fools when the press gets hold of it, or actually get themselves charged with perjury (although the last is very rare for cops, even if occasionally deserved.).
Those particular cops can expect to be cross examined at least twice as long as the others, and if the defense is any good they will pounce on anything else said that can be used to make it worse for the prosecution. That's another advantage for the defense - they already know of some witnesses that are particularly likely to screw up, and to look bad to the jury.
Who is John Cabal?
I don't think this is a trolling comment - if you've ever gotten pulled over you've probably heard the "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about..." justification when an officer feels like searching your car.
I got pulled over for speeding on a Superbowl Sunday, and submitted to the breathalyzer. Blew a zero, and obviously the guy was on DUI patrol because now he wanted to search the car. Just giving me a speeding ticket was apparently not an option. I heard this explanation several times, along with the accusation "What's wrong, you have a little joint in there? A bit of a roach in the ashtray? If there's nothing in there then it won't hurt to have a look, right?" He wouldn't believe me, go figure. He seemed like a good guy, so I traded a search for a warning. I would not advise people to do the same, better to ask if you are free to go and pay the speeding ticket. But I'm weak sometimes when it involves outrageous fees.
I would mod this "+1 funny, in a sad frustrated sort of way"
Actually, I commend you on solid negotiation, and getting away with it. He could've agreed to the trade, and given you the speeding ticket anyway.
You're missing a key point. Legalise marijuana and at least 25-35% of all North American police officers will be redundant. They are fighting for their jobs.
In Canada there is only one association of legal professionals who oppose decriminalisation. Guess who? Yup, the police associations.
So yes, they are to blame.
Ask any dealer how many times they have purchased confiscated material. They have us coming and going. I also happens to provide a convenient excuse for discrediting people whose political views upset the status-quo. Enforcement is totally at the option of the police. Don't you see anything wrong with that?
Marijuana use is so common that they have the option to cherry pick their victims. The intention is not to eliminate marijuana use. It is to exploit it.
This kind of short-sightedness depresses me and tells me that this device of oppression will not be defeated without violent revolution.
CARNIVORE that you fuckers. They know we're not going to take this forever, but the only language they understand is blood. So let it be theirs.
I hate to quote an overused quote, but who watches the watchmen?
Lots of people - it was a box office hit.
DATABASE WOW WOW
You said: Statistically, a majority of Americans have tried pot. Also, a majority of Americans are opposed to legalization. Which means there are a significant number of assholes in this country who think it's perfectly fine if they use pot and get away with it, but YOU should go to jail if you get caught doing the same thing.
Have you considered the possibility the majority of Americans who've tried pot and are now opposed to legalization are opposed because they've come to the conclusion that it should be illegal as a result of their experiences with it and not because they're assholes?
Just a thought.