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."

7 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Least of our problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Monitored while on duty is fine. Off-duty, no way. Officers aren't slaves and they can have a personal life.

  2. Completely unacceptable by vehicle+tracking · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they are criminals. Remember in the U.S. that is determined by a court of law, not bozos like us reading summaries of news reports.

  4. Re:Least of our problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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".

  5. Maybe . . . by jointm1k · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe they were on strike.

    --
    You know it makes sense, a little reminder from jointm1k.
  6. Re:Least of our problems by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  7. Re:cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    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.