Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Blocks Illinois Law Against Recording Police
An anonymous reader writes "The Illinois anti-eavesdropping law was cut down slightly. While protecting the average citizen from eavesdropping, it also put in place prohibitions against recording the police as they were doing their jobs. An appeals court sided with the ACLU, saying that it was too great a restriction on First Amendment rights. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, cementing in place the lower court's ruling. In Illinois, you can now secretly record the police."
With the Supreme Court not yet weighing in, here's a summary of the current state of case law. Every federal appellate circuit to consider the matter has come out in favor of recording being protected, however.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The SCOTUS didn't make any ruling; in fact, they refused to hear the case at all. That means the previous decision stands, but only within the jurisdiction of the court that made that decision. Thus, it doesn't apply to the whole country.
I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown, in which the news snipped off crucial sections in which King repeatedly lunged at police. In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use. We all know how that turned out.
Correction: This is a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling left undisturbed by the S.C.O.T.U.S. In Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin you can probably now secretly record police officers - but might still get arrest for it and have to fight a protracted Court battle. In the rest of the Country there's this 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that was left undisturbed by the S.C.O.T.U.S. your lawyer can now cite to if you get arrested for secretly recording police officers -- the judge in your federal Habeas Corpus action might be persuaded by that authority or might reject it.
They will still arrest you for, among other things, creating a disturbance, interfering with an officer, resisting arrest, mopery and dopery. ;)
And so you will still need a good lawyer.
Finally the line "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" can be used against law enforcement. Since law enforcement agencies across the country are adopting ever more invasive tactics to monitor citizens, it's refreshing to see that we can finally monitor them without fear of reprisal.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
Well, they really didn't rule. They just refused to hear the case. I would have preferred they actually stated outright that we have the right to film the cops so as to invalidated all the state laws against it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The problem is it hasn't actually been upheld by the Supreme Court. If the SC heard the case and upheld it, that would be nationwide binding precedent. But they just chose not to hear the case at all, which has no precedential effect.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Moving out of this crap state.
No, the SCOTUS declined to hear the case, meaning the lower court ruling stands, but is only applicable within that court's jurisdiction. Specifically, the ruling was from the 7th circuit court, so it applies to Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
They will still arrest you for, among other things, creating a disturbance, interfering with an officer, resisting arrest, mopery and dopery. ;)
And well they should--this country is being overrun with mopery & dopery. The more mopes & dopes we can get off the streets, the better!
Are we really in a first world country when we are punished for attempting to hold our law enforcement officers to a standard?
The fact that we are even discussing this issue makes me question the validity of our laws.
Secretly? How about openly? I'd say that you'd better record secretly if you don't want to spend the night in jail and get hit with some BS resisting arrest charge or the like.
There are plenty of officers who don't like the idea of being recorded, and their reasoning varies from concerns about "Monday morning quarterbacking" to the sociopaths not wanting to get caught abusing their power. Still, if they can record us, we should be able to record them.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
And a tape of said event.
Jack of all trades,master of none
There refusal to hear the appeal speaks volumes.
Jack of all trades,master of none
The problem is that mopes and dopes got 98% of the votes 3 weeks ago.
Did you even read the headline? Not the story; not the summary; just the HEADLINE?
Sure it does ,they are saying the events were handled correctly. They just don't pick an appeal out of a hat they have read the whole case already and decided no constitutional laws were broken or no constitutional questions need to be answered. They in affect have upheld the lower court case no need to waste the taxpayers money on a non case.
Jack of all trades,master of none
The Supremes get something right. Well, at least not wrong.
No it doesn't. The Supreme Court refuses to hear most of the cases that seek certification to appeal. It could mean they agree with the ruling, or that they don't see any need to weigh in because there's no dispute between the rulings and no obvious error of law. Sometimes it means they want to see the ruling in action before accepting a later appeal. Often it means that there's something about the underlying fact pattern which has rendered the issue moot (e.g. if the criminal charges have been dropped - if a criminal action - or there is no claim for damages - if a civil suit. If there is no further purpose to the ruling other than to satisfy the curiosity of the parties about the meaning of the law, then the case is probably moot and the Supreme Court will reject the appeal).
That's why we say that the Court's refusal to hear an appeal does not have precidential effect -- we don't know the underlying reasoning behind the Court's decisions and shouldn't assume they agree with the ruling below just because they refused to hear the case. That's not a clear inference.
Then you better go to the nearest police station and turn yourself in!
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
They will still arrest you for, among other things, creating a disturbance, interfering with an officer, resisting arrest, mopery and dopery. ;)
And so you will still need a good lawyer.
The idea is that you record _secretly_. You know, where nobody notices. Especially the police.
Well, it would be a good idea for someone to create an iPhone app that streams video directly to the cloud, so no evidence can be destroyed.
I'm thinking of attacking you and your family. I'm probably on drugs, and won't stop until you beat me down. How long is acceptable? Or do you just let do horrible things to them?
Is that you?
No, they refused to hear the appeal entirely. They did not either affirm or overturn the decision; they just left it in the hat and didn't pick it out at all.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Gardening is a much higher risk job then being a cop. Roofing and fishing is another league completely.
Your right; don't lunge at cops. But not because they are in great danger, because they are armed trigger happy bullies.
The biggest work place risk of being a cop? Traffic accidents.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That does not mean you will not be arrested or bitten for it, as it is still illegal to not follow the directions of police.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Man. Not only didn't read the article, but didn't read the post either! This is new heights for lazy mother______.
Then, somehow, got Score 5: Informative for it too. ___ you slashdot.
If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear officer.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
The problem is that mopes and dopes got 98% of the votes 3 weeks ago.
You're confusing the mopes and dopes with the bums and scum.
The mopes and dopes did 98% of the voting, thereby electing the bums and scum.
No, no, no. Not at all. The Supreme Court has been overwhelmingly clear that a refusal to grant certiorari (that is, a refusal to hear an appeal) has no precedentiary value *whatsoever.* But you're not the first to make that mistake. See, e.g., United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490 (1923) ("The denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times."), quoted in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 296 (1989).
If the Court wishes to express that a lower court case is a "non-case," as you put it, they will make what is known as a summary disposition.
I love it.
Cops and other forms of authority are always telling people that if they are doing nothing wrong, then they shouldn't be concerned about a lack of privacy.
Right back at you Police Officers. If you are doing your job without breaking the law you have no reason to be concerned about me recording you.
So what? They'll make another fucked up law, and people will have to spend millions to fight it, and what do the lawmakers get for being assholes? RE-ELECTED!!!
You don't mind getting roughed up a little and sitting in jail for an
evening on trumped up charges and then paying for a lawyer to
eventually dismiss your charges for which you file a complaint that
is ultimately ignored.
Gardening is a much higher risk job then being a cop. Roofing and fishing is another league completely.
When it comes to death/injury rates, yes. Psychologically speaking, definitely no. There is a distinct difference between dealing with passive inanimate hazards and hostile people. Lawnmowers do not come to life and attack gardeners except in bad movie adaptations of Stephen King stories.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Pretty much designed specifically for this purpose: http://www.tapin.tv/
They exist. Qik, UStream, and TapIn are among them. TapIn in particular was designed for protestors and recording authorities, and provides no means to delete footage on the recording device itself - it must be done from the user's account page, by which time the video will have been downloaded and redistributed beyond the user's (or the police's) ability to control.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
I'm sure the first time a police officer asks for a bribe to let you out of a traffic ticket or slams you against the ground because he did not like the bumber stickers on your car, you will wish that the whole episode was being recorded. We have seen a few officers caught on tape being mean violent bullies have to pay the piper. Without those pieces of video it is the revered representative of the law's word against yours. The court usually favors its own and they know it.
That is not to say that more than a small percentage of law officers are bad seed, but this they are paid by the public to do the publics work in law enforcement and they are and should be beholding to us as their bosses and be held to a very high standard of conduct. Most law officers do their duty honorably but those that don't should be held account or we drop into a police state.
And soon illegals living there will be able to get drivers licenses.
Sounds to me like ILLinois has things all figured out! LOL
You CAN say fuck on the internet. You know that, right?
I'm all for a limit on how long someone can be a cop before they are required to get an honest job.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Lawnmowers do not come to life and attack gardeners except in bad movie adaptations of Stephen King stories.
Or AWESOME movie adaptations of Stephen King stories (caveat: Haven't seen Maximum Overdrive in over 2 decades).
I'm sure the first time a police officer asks for a bribe to let you out of a traffic ticket or slams you against the ground because he did not like the bumber stickers on your car, you will wish that the whole episode was being recorded. We have seen a few officers caught on tape being mean violent bullies have to pay the piper. Without those pieces of video it is the revered representative of the law's word against yours. The court usually favors its own and they know it.
That is not to say that more than a small percentage of law officers are bad seed, but this they are paid by the public to do the publics work in law enforcement and they are and should be beholding to us as their bosses and be held to a very high standard of conduct. Most law officers do their duty honorably but those that don't should be held account or we drop into a police state.
Whoooosh...
That was the sound of sarcasm flying by your head ;-)
Supreme Court Blocks Illinois Law Against Recording Police
A better title:
Supreme Court Declines To Un-Block Illinois Law Against Recording Police
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Actually, being a cop is fairly dangerous, because of the traffic accidents. Driving is the most dangerous thing most of us do daily, and cops do a lot of it. Driving for a living is just a dangerous job, by modern standards, but as you say not in the league of deep sea fishing.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It does, but I don't think it does in the way you mean.
It says that the supremes don't believe this to be obviously unconstitutional enough to warrant hearing at this time - perhaps they think there might be more arguments that other courts might hear or present, and they want there to be a few more cases before deciding anything.
A few more people in a few more states need to be arrested over this to even have standing, and the Supreme court is ok with waiting for that.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
No it doesn't. The Supreme Court refuses to hear most of the cases that seek certification to appeal.
According to the Supreme Court website they agree to hear about 1% of the petitions they receive. This case was part of the 99%.
My favorite is "resisting arrest" What did you arrest them for? Resisting arrest. What were they resisting arrest from? Resisting arrest. Apparently 95% of people only resisting arrest were resisting arrest for their resisting arrest charge (and 83.4% of spastics are made up).
Learn to love Alaska
Most law officers do their duty honorably but those that don't should be held account or we drop into a police state.
There are two types of cops, bad cops and cops who cover for bad cops. There are no good cops.
Learn to love Alaska
That's why we say that the Court's refusal to hear an appeal does not have precidential effect
But it leaves undisturbed the president of the lower court ruling (theoretically binding in the same district and referencial for all others.
Learn to love Alaska
The choice to not hear it does have precedential effect. The previous finding, de-facto upheld by the court (much like a mistrial is a not-guilty result of a trial, as the defendant is not found guilty), is non-binding on the Supreme Court, but is binding in the 7th District, and referential in the other districts. It is not a Supreme Court precedent, and bears no official standing over any other action before the court, but should reduce the chance the Supreme Court will hear the issue, especially from any case coming from the 7th District.
Learn to love Alaska
If the cops have nothing to hide...then they have nothing to fear by being taped.
Isn't that pretty much what "the authorities" usually want to tell Joe Citizen?
Yes.
But, because the police are acting as agents of the state, it is appropriate to hold them to a stricter standard in this matter.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Anything with Emilio Esteves can be described as "awesome" without conditions or caveats.
Learn to love Alaska
Taxi drivers are much more likely to die on the job than cops. Do you get a free beating with every airport pickup?
Learn to love Alaska
I'm not sure who the president of the lower court is of which you speak, but the ruling does stand in the 7th Circuit.
For that matter, its not like we just take caselaw at face value even if it was a SCOTUS ruling -- you just argue around it. "Case X, which is horrible for my client, is innapposite because there the Plaintiff was a nun. No nuns here your honor."
When you're levelling a blanket insult at a group of people, and that group comprises 98% of your compatriots, it's time to consider the possibility that maybe you're not perfect.
No. You're misusing the words "precedential effect," or at least applying them to the wrong thing. The Seventh Circuit decision of course has precedential effect, and is binding on the district courts within that circuit, as well as other three-judge panels of the Seventh Circuit -- though NOT of the Seventh Circuit sitting as a whole ("en banc"), an admittedly rare circumstance. But this would be the same effect as if the losing party in the appeal never applied for certiorari, and if the Supreme Court never touched the issue -- the denial of certiorari, in and of itself, means NOTHING in terms of binding law for future cases. It is completely irrelevant, and if you attempted to cite the denial in court, you would get in response the same cite to Justice Holmes from 1923, probably along with an admonition that you've have 90 years to have figured this out.
Of course, the Seventh Circuit was ruling on this particular law. It does not mean that any analogous laws in states other than Illinois are automatically invalid, nor does it mean that Illinois could never pass a narrower law that would pass constitutional scrutiny.
Moreover, if you mean to say that the denial now binds the en banc Seventh Circuit to the decision rendered in this case, you're absolutely wrong.
As to whether it reduces the chances that the Supreme Court will hear the issue in the future: the only thing that decides which cert petitions are granted, is how 4 justices feel on the days that cert petitions are reviewed. You might be able to come up with some conditional probability of future acceptance given past denials, but it's not likely to be very clear one way or the other.
They do claim to be bound by precedent -- right up until the moment where they decide to overturn it. Essentially, to say that something is a "Supreme Court precedent" means two things: In addition to the more common meaning that it is binding on the lower courts, it also means that it can be cited back to the Supreme Court in a future case, as persuasive authority that one's interpretation of law is the correct one. "Non-precedential" decisions such as this cannot be cited back to the court (at least, not without a lecture from the court, as in the Carver case I cited above). While, ultimately, the Court can go any way it likes, it strongly prefers (as do all common law courts) to side with previous cases, than to overturn them. In fact, the courts will often jump through hoops to avoid explicitly overturning precedent, even when that's effectively what they're doing. Favorite strategies are saying that the case was "limited to its facts," or that the bar and the lower courts simply misunderstood for a century or so.
The optimist would say that the courts attempt to preserve the stability of the law; the cynic would say that they can't admit they were wrong. Take your pick...
If the supreme had blocked the law it would have set a national precedent. They declined to hear the case and thereby allowed the possibility of such tatics being used in other states.
As to whether it reduces the chances that the Supreme Court will hear the issue in the future:
You misunderstand. I *never* said it would have any effect on whether the Supreme Court would decide to hear it or not hear it if it were presented again, but that a standing court decision (or any kind, even by a "peer" court, rather than superior) would reduce the variability in findings, and properly set expectations of those raising the issue in lower courts, which is what would affect the chance of the issue making it to the Supreme Court.
No. You're misusing the words "precedential effect," or at least applying them to the wrong thing. The Seventh Circuit decision of course has precedential effect, and is binding on the district courts within that circuit, as well as other three-judge panels of the Seventh Circuit -- though NOT of the Seventh Circuit sitting as a whole ("en banc"), an admittedly rare circumstance.
You are apparently taking "precedent" to mean "binding precedent". The problem is I mean "precedent" when I say "precedent" and that includes "persuasive precedent" not just "binding precedent."
Learn to love Alaska
What, you think there's only one type of cop, the bad ones?
Learn to love Alaska
And that is probably why they refused. If they heard the case they'd have to make a ruling which would apply across the entire country. By refusing to hear it they can contain the "damage" to just Illinois.
Civil? CIVIL?
So when I break the law and there's cops around, I can reasonably expect to be charged with a crime, prosecuted with public funds, and I may spend some of my previously-free time holding a bunk down in jail.
Meanwhile when the cops break the law and I'm around, then maybe someday I might be able to sue them in civil court, if I can afford to. And what do I get out of this effort? A pony?
Meh.
Kid-proof tablet..
Let's cut straight to the point: the denial itself means nothing. To anyone. Not even to the parties in a future case, certainly not to other courts, not to the same court, not to anyone. It means zero. Zip. Zilch. It is as if the Supreme Court hadn't spoken. In fact, that's EXACTLY what it is -- the Supreme Court refusing to speak. The denial is no more persuasive than it is binding. It is nothing. A favorable denial of cert and $2.49 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
If you are trying to say that the denial of cert means that the Seventh Circuit decision is now binding in the Seventh Circuit -- yes, you are certainly correct. But the denial does not add or subtract to the weight of that precedent. It means nothing.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Yes, but taxi drivers often combine driving with "staying up 48 hours straight", which is death-seeking behavior to begin with.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
For instance if I record a cop hitting someone and show it there will be public outcry if I only show that portion, if I leave out the part where he stopped someone commiting a crime or the person was all crazy on bath salts then everyone would say the cop was wrong and he should be fired blah blah blah.
If the cops have their own cameras they can submit footage that shows the "missing" part. There is no reason that we should not be able to record police activity in public. For instance, police footage mysteriously goes missing sometimes too. Checkmate moron.
Seriously. Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death.
Even with traffic accidents included there are a dozen jobs with higher fatality rates and some of them are pretty grisly (like being ripped to pieces while still alive by heavy machinary).
If you take out the traffic accidents, there are easily a couple dozen jobs with higher fatality rates.
And, being an old fart, I've seen good men turn bad because they were cops. They laugh at abusing their power over civilians. They use prostitutes- and/or arrest them. They break the law. They lie under oath.
Many of them are good people. But a lot of people who just want power over others are attracted to the job. And a lot of others are corrupted by that power over time.
And hell, i"m making it generic, but as far as I can see, the men are corrupted much faster than the women.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
No I really want good cops. but if they are not turning in the bad cops then how can you say they are good cops. When they witness a crime or abuse of authority (which, let's be honest, should be a crime) then they have proven they are no better then the ones committing the acts. The thin blue line isn't there to protect "good" cops.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
True, in that it does not apply to the whole country (even in Illinois it applies to Cook County only), but this literally affirms the lower court's ruling. Pay attention: The lower court was a federal appeals court, thus its jurisdiction is the whole U.S. By the Supreme Court letting stand the federal appeals court's ruling in that the law against eavesdropping is unconstitutional, any other state will think twice (or three times) before bringing a charge against a citizen recording police in the course of performing their duties.
Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
There are good cops. They do, when they are able, turn in the bad ones. Were this not the case, there would be literally zero cops ever arrested, anywhere. Since this is not the case, each and every instance of this happening utterly obliterates your dishonest premise.
You are missing at least a couple possibilities, the possibility that the cops who were arrested are simply scapegoats. Arrested when the court of public opinion won't let things pass with no one reprimanded.
Like in organized crime, the arrested person does the time instead of a higher up, and come out a made man or something of that sort. Or the flip side, the arrested cop is innocent, and simply wouldn't go along with whatever scheme the rest were up to. Therefore they were gotten rid of / taught a lesson. Not saying those are the only possibilities or that your possibility was wrong though.
This is not the funny you're looking for.
FYI, Tapin DOES NOT let you delete AT ALL. You have to contact their staff to do it. It's not a web interface the user can control. While they say it's "to prevent the police from forcing you to do it" it sort of puts that tool solely in the "useful for the Free Shit Army" category rather than something a regular Slashdotter might want.
Getting a video off the phone and into the public eye fast is the useful part. Not being able to delete is only useful in totalitarian regimes that are going to imprison and beat someone for access to a an account.
This is why you should be careful with statistics, something I thought most /.'ers knew.
Those statistics are taken across the entire police force.
Break it down by the different duties and a different picture emerges.
Traffic enforcement and desk duty are the big outliers than lower the statistical rate on the rest of the duties.
Traffic enforcement, generally not hazardous to health, though they are always wary of the potential that the guy you just pulled over may be wanted or may shoot you. (Just cause its uncommon doesnt mean you ignore the risk; cops want to get home to their families too, and criminals dont tend to just break one law and call it quits, but several)
Other more hazardous duties are things like:
drug enforcement/busts
responding to calls (robbery, etc)
domestic disputes (actually one of the most dangerous and unpredictable things cops deal with)
Not everything is pulling over grannies who went a little fast.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
driving old cars badly in need of maintenance and new shocks/brakes at breakneck speeds. man taxis scare me
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I'm not sure if you've fallen victim to the syndrome described in my sig or not. The word is 'precedent', not 'president'.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Gardeners/machinists/fishermen/roofers also have more and less dangerous parts of their jobs. What is your point? Just trying to obfuscate?
Being a cop is not a very dangerous job at all. The main danger is to their souls. They are surrounded by villainous scum of the earth, and that's just roll call.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I thought that traffic duty was one of the most risky, and you are more likely to be rearended at a stop with your lights on while on the shoulder of a highway than have an issue with the driver of the car you pulled over.
I walked with a sheriff serving warrants, and someone else tagged along. The sheriff stands to the side while knocking, and the guy asked "why do you do that?" I answered for the sheriff, "the wall stops bullets better than the door does" (though most don't shoot at him through the wall, but that people shoot at the door/sound, not the person anyway, but process serving is dangerous).
Learn to love Alaska
Read my posts on the matter. I managed to spell it wrong once. That doesn't mean I don't know the word, and the usage lines up 100% with precedent, so it's obvious what I meant. It's a typo. And yes, spelling errors where the error is not an adjacent character can be a typo. So don't bother telling me I don't know what a typo is.
Learn to love Alaska
Let's cut straight to the point: the denial itself means nothing.
Lets cut straight to the point: because the Supreme Court did not hear it, the lower court decision stands as a precedent.
If you are trying to say that the denial of cert means that the Seventh Circuit decision is now binding in the Seventh Circuit -- yes, you are certainly correct. But the denial does not add or subtract to the weight of that precedent. It means nothing.
That's what I've been saying the whole time, and being told, repeatedly (by multiple people) that I'm wrong.
It's also non-binding persuasive precedent for *all* courts in the US (including the Supreme Court).
Learn to love Alaska
Like the other lying scumbag AK Marc
I didn't lie. My opinion, no matter how wrong, is never a lie. You've presented nothing that contradicts my opinion, other than your opinion. Perhaps it is you that's lying about everyone else's lying, after all, you are the only one defending the cooked cops who cover for other crooked cops.
And you hate that. You pretend you don't, but you shriek and cry and scream with frustrated rage every time a "bad cop" gets caught and punished.
The only frustration is that they stopped when they found that one. What about the other 99%?
your simplistic "cop = bad" fantasy is nothing
It's a reflection on the cop psychosis that there are two types of people, cops and criminals. Note, we are taught this from a young age. Nobody plays "cops and innocent bystanders". The cops *do* believe that all non-cops are bad guys. They claim they do so for safety, because you never know when one may be, and if you aren't prepared, you'll get dead. But they repeat it so often, that they end up believing the lie.
What's the matter, are you a security guard who wants to grow up and be a police officer as soon as you get eye surgery or fix your club foot or whatever? Don't worry, they won't take you once your physical defect is fixed, you'd never pass the psych screen.
Learn to love Alaska
I have friends who are law enforcement officers. Most quit within 5 years because they can't handle the corruption. It's like car salesmen. I was one of those. And every single one of them is an evil liar. I made it only a few weeks. The "good" cops are all rookies, and quit before making it to 5 years. So yes, there are some good ones, but nearly all are the bad ones because the good ones all leave.
Learn to love Alaska
It's an irrefutable fact, and you have no choice but to agree with it.
Again, it's your unsubstantiated opinion that you disagree with me. I think it's you that's lying. What, you have an uncle that's a dirty cop and he molested you as a child?
Learn to love Alaska
Exactly as I said you would, you have repeated the same lies as before, even after admitting that they were debunked, and even after being made uncomfortably aware of how easily they were exposed and would be again.
You are wrong and lying on everything. I never lied. You never debunked any lies. You are exposing yourself over and over, like your uncle did to you.
Learn to love Alaska
No worries, AK Marc - I'm wasn't being critical - that's why I mentioned the possibility that it wasn't a violation of Tiller's Rule. FWIW I don't consider correctly spelling a near homonym a 'typo', but you can call it whatever you want.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Most walls won't stop most bullets.
Stand on the right side. Because most people are righties and will naturally want to stand on the left. So that's the wall most likely to be shot through.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I know it's all press-like and maybe you want to publish someday. But wouldn't it make more sense to classify it as 2nd and 4th amendment breach? A camera as reasonable, non-violent armament for defense, and taking/destroying the evidence recorded on it being an unreasonable search and seizure(hell, if not out right evidence tampering)?
A typo is a mistyping. A touch typist with dyslexia will make typing errors that are counterintuitive. I'll verbally spell out "p" "i" "n"g" and my fingers will hit dind (d for p because they are the same shape, orientation is irrelevant) and (d for g because, well, I don't know, maybe they sound similar or something). Just because a set of letter swap-typos result in a homonym doesn't mean that they aren't typos. Even if they are typos you'd never make.
Learn to love Alaska
You are not. The reality is that you had the terrifying realization that you had no possible way to refute me, and you are trying to excuse your failures by pretending you are not making an effort. It isn't working.
I didn't excuse any failure, as I had made none. Cops have sued many times to win the right to never have to protect or serve. But they put that on their doors as a lie to convince people otherwise.
Learn to love Alaska