First of all, it was almost certainly wrong for the officer to point a gun in your face. I'm sorry to hear it happened. I am a law enforcement officer in Florida, and nothing but the most heinous crimes makes me as angry as a corrupt cop.
I would like to address your misconception of it being the job of the police to presume innocence until proven guilty. That's simply not true. Innocent until proven guilty applies only in a court of law, not on the street or in the realm of an investigation. If I were to simply presume someone was innocent, why would I go around arresting people I presume innocent? The concept is patently absurd, and not how our legal system works.
As for defending yourself over traffic infractions, I would study up on cross-examination and courtroom tactics. A library is your friend here. Also, in some cases, requesting a hearing by a judge (most traffic courts employ a hearing officer instead of a judge) may be beneficial. The hearing officer in the court I go to is very fair, but a judge holds the officer to much stricter standards of testimony and evidence. For example, a hearing officer would let an officer say "my radar was inspected on this date, and I have a copy of the certification here", while a judge would actually examine the certification, allow the defense to examine it, ensure it is accurate, then require it to be entered into evidence as a prosecution exhibit. Minor differences, but they make a difference. I've lost on a fair number of tickets, usually by forgetting to bring evidence, or making a mistake in testimony, or misremembering what happened five months prior. A hearing officer will sometimes gloss over mistakes by an officer (because he's paid by the court costs, which are assessed on *guily* parties), but a judge will not gloss over mistakes.
I strongly encourage anyone who suspects corruption in the local police to organize reports to their state's certification boards and their state-level law enforcement investigation branch. In Florida, it's the CJSTI and FDLE, respectively. Remember, presenting your evidence fairly and without emotion is difficult, but it makes your case stronger without harming good cops by association.
>Police forces are treated as a paramilitary force
There, you just hit the nail on the head for something that drives me FREAKING INSANE!
We're god-damned PEACE OFFICERS, not government toughs! We keep the peace, and enforce laws in order to do that. American police forces really need to change their attitude and stop acting like an extension of the military.
I think it would be better to say that no person should *want* to be able to walk in off the street and buy an AK47.
Assault rifles are not self-defense or hunting weapons. They are assault weapons. They have a very specific purpose: killing and wounding large numbers of people at a very fast rate.
This doesn't mean they should be banned. Why should I, a police officer, be allowed to have weapons like that while you can't? America is supposed to be a government by, of and for the people: if the people's words aren't enough to effect change, they have to be able to back it up. Trust me, you do not want people like me dictating your lives. What happens if the government stops taking no for an answer?
We need to eliminate the causes of violent behavior, not the tools for doing it. If the citizens are only allowed to have small arms, then the army and the police should be banned from using them too.
Obama, Clinton, McCain, etc, all of them make me want to never vote again. I've always voted for third parties, since I refuse to buy into the belief that a vote on principles is a wasted vote, but I think we need a new option on ballots:
"Throw the bastards out."
If this wins the majority, the candidates for the parties are legally prohibited from ever running for office again, and we start over with new primaries. It'd be nice if we could go so far that if this option wins, the candidates and all their cronies get exiled to some godforsaken rock in the Pacific.
I think a lot of people don't understand just how important the term reasonable suspicion is in the US justice system.
I am a law enforcement officer in Florida. If I have reasonable suspicion that you are actively engaged in a crime, I have the right to detain you, without arresting you or charging you, for up to 24 hours. While detained, I cannot search your person or your vehicle. You cannot give consent to be searched either, as you would be under duress and not free to go. What I can do is a cursory pat-down of your person for safety reason (see Terry Stop case law). I can also observe your vehicle from the outside, and if I see any weapons or contraband in plain view I can immediately arrest you and do a full search of both your person and your vehicle.
Reasonable suspicion gives a police officer an enormous number of tools to work with. People need to learn what it means, and once they understand what it means, lobby for change if they do not like it. Most police officers stick to the letter of the law, and to the letter of the case law to the best of their abilities. If you change the law to restrict cops, all *good* cops will abide by it whether they like it or not.
The key limit of what we can do under reasonable suspicion is "an unreasonable violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy." The judge probably believed that a GPS tracker placed on the exterior of a vehicle was no more invasive than an officer following the vehicle around to see where it went. We already do that when we do undercover surveillance ops.
Quick note: I am a law enforcement officer and have a background in network management.
One of the issues I face in investigating identity-theft related crimes is the lack of knowledge the general consumer has. That seems to be changing.
About a year ago, the typical victim of identity theft would ask questions like "How can they be using my credit card if I have it right here?" or "I'll bet it was the waiter at that restaurant last week who looked at me funny. He can charge any price he wants on their system, right?"
Now, my typical victim of identity theft is much more aware, and usually has the credit reporting agencies and banks notified of the problem within hours instead of days or weeks. They know in advance what to do, and don't have to be told how to help themselves.
I have to hand it to the average citizen. They are catching on about internet safety. Not completely and not quickly, but it's a major improvement.
I've reached a point of total cynicism in voting. I assume that everything a candidate claims to believe or promises to do is a lie. I either vote for an incumbent if I like their record, or for the newcomer if I don't like the incumbent's record.
Until we get a new system that allows the people to throw out someone in office, I won't vote for anyone based on their campaign.
The police involved probably had a search warrant. Nearly every search warrant served means SWAT will go in first to make sure the area is 100% secure. It's standard procedure with almost all major departments.
*disclaimer: I haven't seen the video due to restricted net access* It's this sort of crap that's going to get a very useful and life-saving tool taken away from cops who use it right.
There's no reason to deploy a taser on someone who is ALREADY ON THE GROUND AND NO LONGER FIGHTING!
I have used my taser as a police officer twice. The first time, the wires broke on contact and I had to chase him. The second time, the guy fell to the ground and became verbally and physically compliant.
Tasers cannot be used as FREAKING CATTLE PRODS! They're a sophisticated, useful tool that is meant to incapacitate a VIOLENT criminal in order to protect *both* the officer and the offender from serious bodily injury. When deployed in a sensible, responsible fashion, tasers save lives. When used 3 to 5 times on a compliant subject on the ground, they don't help.
In Florida (where I am a sworn law enforcement officer), most agencies are not allowed to use a taser unless a subject is actively resisting arrest (i.e. fighting and/or running away). A large powerful agency nearby was using them on everyone for passive resistance (i.e. "I'm Ofc. Jones, who are you?" "Screw you pig!" *taser*)
I strongly object to this. There are cops who are not corrupt, and are both aware of and actively fighting the corruption of those around them. Most departments have dedicated prosecutors whose only job is to discipline, fire and prosecute corrupt officers. They're called internal affairs investigators.
There are street officers who believe their job is that of a peacekeeper, not a tax collector or bully. I'm one of them.
There are also tyrant cops. I won't deny it, and I will stop it if I see it. In my experience, the majority do not fit into your 3 categories (though I admit my pro-police bias)
After an XP virus ate a boot partition, I switched over to Ubuntu and have not looked back. My massive PC gaming library lies dormant, but it's a small sacrifice to avoid that sort of ridiculous hassle.
I'm reading through some of these things and am appalled to see things my proverbial brothers are doing. This should not stand, and officers who are truly guilty of such offenses should be punished with the maximum penalty under US chapter 18 for violation of civil rights.
I have never done anything on duty or while as an off duty representative of the state that I wouldn't want photographed, recorded, or otherwise witnessed. I am proud to protect and serve, not to bully and harass. In fact, there are times that things have happened when I wish I had a camera or tape recorder to back me up on what I had to say. I've arrested people who try to bang their faces against the side of my patrol car in order to cause bleeding and claim that I beat them up. Fortunately, I had a civilian witness in the case to back me up on what I said.
While some cops lie, remember that criminals lie too. There are cops who do bad things who should be soundly punished, but there are people who will go out of their way to ruin a cop because they don't like them, and they should be punished as well.
Maybe it's because I'm a small town cop, but with the exception of the "bad" part of town I feel like a welcome presence everywhere I go. If I can't hold my head up high and know that people see me as a friend and protector, not a tyrant, I couldn't do my job.
The best job I've ever had (and still do have) is a police officer for a small town. There are few coworkers. There are lots of constraints and regulations, but the politics (while present) have not affected me. Most importantly: I'm happy doing it. My job in the IT field was the worst I've ever had, and I don't miss it. The seven years I spent doing it aren't a total loss, but they come pretty close to it. Stress, health problems, politics, bad coworkers, customer problems galore.
I've also enjoyed small jobs at "hole in the wall" retail stores and restaurants. When the top decision maker works beside you every day, and you frequently spend time away from work as friends, it's an excellent work environment. It's not IT, but I know there are IT shops like this out there.
Smaller is better. I wouldn't work for a company with more than 100 employees, and I'd prefer one with 30 or fewer. My department has 60, but my chain of command is only 8.
Disclosure: I don't listen to modern music, except when in the company of others. I do not download music in any form. I do not buy music in any form. The following is casual observation
Music today is too simplistic to deserve a lot of money.
Most mass-marketed songs have a simple beat, and a half dozen notes and/or chords, played ad nauseum. The lyrics frequently make no sense. Not the airy, ethereal nonsense of the 60s. I mean garbled, like the "artist" is purposely trying to sound like s/he can't sing clearly. Many songs are nothing but shock value. "Profanity" can be used in an artistic way, but when it rises past a certain point it becomes pointless.
Even 20 years ago, music was better. I don't particularly like anything made in the past 60 years, but even music from the 1970s is more musical than the cacaphony produced today.
This may be right on. Re-usable is not as important as robust and safe.
We went to the moon in disposable spacecraft. The simple shape of the Apollo modules is probably a step in the right direction from the current shuttle. A single heat shield with no weak points is probably a better idea than a wing.
Considering that NASA only launches once or twice a year anyway, an extremely reliable one-shot system is probably the way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
Reminds me of a Peanuts strip Schultz ran in the 50s.
Lucy bugs Charlie Brown into reading her a story. He reads:
"Once upon a time and they all lived happily ever after."
Condensed story-telling in its early stages.
First of all, it was almost certainly wrong for the officer to point a gun in your face. I'm sorry to hear it happened. I am a law enforcement officer in Florida, and nothing but the most heinous crimes makes me as angry as a corrupt cop.
I would like to address your misconception of it being the job of the police to presume innocence until proven guilty. That's simply not true. Innocent until proven guilty applies only in a court of law, not on the street or in the realm of an investigation. If I were to simply presume someone was innocent, why would I go around arresting people I presume innocent? The concept is patently absurd, and not how our legal system works.
As for defending yourself over traffic infractions, I would study up on cross-examination and courtroom tactics. A library is your friend here. Also, in some cases, requesting a hearing by a judge (most traffic courts employ a hearing officer instead of a judge) may be beneficial. The hearing officer in the court I go to is very fair, but a judge holds the officer to much stricter standards of testimony and evidence. For example, a hearing officer would let an officer say "my radar was inspected on this date, and I have a copy of the certification here", while a judge would actually examine the certification, allow the defense to examine it, ensure it is accurate, then require it to be entered into evidence as a prosecution exhibit. Minor differences, but they make a difference.
I've lost on a fair number of tickets, usually by forgetting to bring evidence, or making a mistake in testimony, or misremembering what happened five months prior. A hearing officer will sometimes gloss over mistakes by an officer (because he's paid by the court costs, which are assessed on *guily* parties), but a judge will not gloss over mistakes.
I strongly encourage anyone who suspects corruption in the local police to organize reports to their state's certification boards and their state-level law enforcement investigation branch. In Florida, it's the CJSTI and FDLE, respectively.
Remember, presenting your evidence fairly and without emotion is difficult, but it makes your case stronger without harming good cops by association.
Except he wouldn't be allowed to bring his new gun.
>Police forces are treated as a paramilitary force
There, you just hit the nail on the head for something that drives me FREAKING INSANE!
We're god-damned PEACE OFFICERS, not government toughs! We keep the peace, and enforce laws in order to do that. American police forces really need to change their attitude and stop acting like an extension of the military.
Certain toothpastes and many oral care products field test positive for cocaine.
It's just something to watch for.
No cop with an ounce of common sense arrests solely on a field test. The substance has to actually make sense to be the substance in question.
Of course, without seeing the full arrest report...who could say? You have to wonder why the soap was tested in the first place.
I think it would be better to say that no person should *want* to be able to walk in off the street and buy an AK47.
Assault rifles are not self-defense or hunting weapons. They are assault weapons. They have a very specific purpose: killing and wounding large numbers of people at a very fast rate.
This doesn't mean they should be banned. Why should I, a police officer, be allowed to have weapons like that while you can't? America is supposed to be a government by, of and for the people: if the people's words aren't enough to effect change, they have to be able to back it up. Trust me, you do not want people like me dictating your lives.
What happens if the government stops taking no for an answer?
We need to eliminate the causes of violent behavior, not the tools for doing it. If the citizens are only allowed to have small arms, then the army and the police should be banned from using them too.
From the US to the world: OBEY.
I'll never understand how "theft" of non-physical property with no proveable financial loss can be a crime.
Civil, sure. Crime? No.
Obama, Clinton, McCain, etc, all of them make me want to never vote again.
I've always voted for third parties, since I refuse to buy into the belief that a vote on principles is a wasted vote, but I think we need a new option on ballots:
"Throw the bastards out."
If this wins the majority, the candidates for the parties are legally prohibited from ever running for office again, and we start over with new primaries.
It'd be nice if we could go so far that if this option wins, the candidates and all their cronies get exiled to some godforsaken rock in the Pacific.
Yeah, it'll never happen. Let me dream please.
I think a lot of people don't understand just how important the term reasonable suspicion is in the US justice system.
I am a law enforcement officer in Florida. If I have reasonable suspicion that you are actively engaged in a crime, I have the right to detain you, without arresting you or charging you, for up to 24 hours.
While detained, I cannot search your person or your vehicle. You cannot give consent to be searched either, as you would be under duress and not free to go.
What I can do is a cursory pat-down of your person for safety reason (see Terry Stop case law). I can also observe your vehicle from the outside, and if I see any weapons or contraband in plain view I can immediately arrest you and do a full search of both your person and your vehicle.
Reasonable suspicion gives a police officer an enormous number of tools to work with. People need to learn what it means, and once they understand what it means, lobby for change if they do not like it. Most police officers stick to the letter of the law, and to the letter of the case law to the best of their abilities. If you change the law to restrict cops, all *good* cops will abide by it whether they like it or not.
The key limit of what we can do under reasonable suspicion is "an unreasonable violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy." The judge probably believed that a GPS tracker placed on the exterior of a vehicle was no more invasive than an officer following the vehicle around to see where it went. We already do that when we do undercover surveillance ops.
I thought it was the 8th son of an 8th son of an 8th son.
Quick note: I am a law enforcement officer and have a background in network management.
One of the issues I face in investigating identity-theft related crimes is the lack of knowledge the general consumer has. That seems to be changing.
About a year ago, the typical victim of identity theft would ask questions like "How can they be using my credit card if I have it right here?" or "I'll bet it was the waiter at that restaurant last week who looked at me funny. He can charge any price he wants on their system, right?"
Now, my typical victim of identity theft is much more aware, and usually has the credit reporting agencies and banks notified of the problem within hours instead of days or weeks. They know in advance what to do, and don't have to be told how to help themselves.
I have to hand it to the average citizen. They are catching on about internet safety. Not completely and not quickly, but it's a major improvement.
I'm not bitter that my request for a color printer got denied.
This way I won't work all day and accidently
DELETE...a...FILE!
Welcome to Wally-World.
I've reached a point of total cynicism in voting. I assume that everything a candidate claims to believe or promises to do is a lie. I either vote for an incumbent if I like their record, or for the newcomer if I don't like the incumbent's record.
Until we get a new system that allows the people to throw out someone in office, I won't vote for anyone based on their campaign.
The police involved probably had a search warrant. Nearly every search warrant served means SWAT will go in first to make sure the area is 100% secure. It's standard procedure with almost all major departments.
It doesn't make it look any less silly though.
This may make me the most horrible person in the world, but I couldn't stop laughing after reading this.
*disclaimer: I haven't seen the video due to restricted net access*
It's this sort of crap that's going to get a very useful and life-saving tool taken away from cops who use it right.
There's no reason to deploy a taser on someone who is ALREADY ON THE GROUND AND NO LONGER FIGHTING!
I have used my taser as a police officer twice. The first time, the wires broke on contact and I had to chase him. The second time, the guy fell to the ground and became verbally and physically compliant.
Tasers cannot be used as FREAKING CATTLE PRODS! They're a sophisticated, useful tool that is meant to incapacitate a VIOLENT criminal in order to protect *both* the officer and the offender from serious bodily injury. When deployed in a sensible, responsible fashion, tasers save lives. When used 3 to 5 times on a compliant subject on the ground, they don't help.
In Florida (where I am a sworn law enforcement officer), most agencies are not allowed to use a taser unless a subject is actively resisting arrest (i.e. fighting and/or running away). A large powerful agency nearby was using them on everyone for passive resistance (i.e. "I'm Ofc. Jones, who are you?" "Screw you pig!" *taser*)
I strongly object to this. There are cops who are not corrupt, and are both aware of and actively fighting the corruption of those around them.
Most departments have dedicated prosecutors whose only job is to discipline, fire and prosecute corrupt officers. They're called internal affairs investigators.
There are street officers who believe their job is that of a peacekeeper, not a tax collector or bully. I'm one of them.
There are also tyrant cops. I won't deny it, and I will stop it if I see it.
In my experience, the majority do not fit into your 3 categories (though I admit my pro-police bias)
After an XP virus ate a boot partition, I switched over to Ubuntu and have not looked back. My massive PC gaming library lies dormant, but it's a small sacrifice to avoid that sort of ridiculous hassle.
I'm reading through some of these things and am appalled to see things my proverbial brothers are doing. This should not stand, and officers who are truly guilty of such offenses should be punished with the maximum penalty under US chapter 18 for violation of civil rights.
I have never done anything on duty or while as an off duty representative of the state that I wouldn't want photographed, recorded, or otherwise witnessed. I am proud to protect and serve, not to bully and harass. In fact, there are times that things have happened when I wish I had a camera or tape recorder to back me up on what I had to say. I've arrested people who try to bang their faces against the side of my patrol car in order to cause bleeding and claim that I beat them up. Fortunately, I had a civilian witness in the case to back me up on what I said.
While some cops lie, remember that criminals lie too. There are cops who do bad things who should be soundly punished, but there are people who will go out of their way to ruin a cop because they don't like them, and they should be punished as well.
Maybe it's because I'm a small town cop, but with the exception of the "bad" part of town I feel like a welcome presence everywhere I go. If I can't hold my head up high and know that people see me as a friend and protector, not a tyrant, I couldn't do my job.
The best job I've ever had (and still do have) is a police officer for a small town. There are few coworkers. There are lots of constraints and regulations, but the politics (while present) have not affected me.
Most importantly: I'm happy doing it. My job in the IT field was the worst I've ever had, and I don't miss it. The seven years I spent doing it aren't a total loss, but they come pretty close to it. Stress, health problems, politics, bad coworkers, customer problems galore.
I've also enjoyed small jobs at "hole in the wall" retail stores and restaurants. When the top decision maker works beside you every day, and you frequently spend time away from work as friends, it's an excellent work environment. It's not IT, but I know there are IT shops like this out there.
Smaller is better. I wouldn't work for a company with more than 100 employees, and I'd prefer one with 30 or fewer.
My department has 60, but my chain of command is only 8.
Am I being short-sighted here, or is this information really pointless?
In the long-run, I suppose we MIGHT gain some insight into wierd physics that we MIGHT be able to use once we get out of our own solar system.
But seriously, is there a real use for this that we could put to practical use within 20 years?
Don't buy those new non-evil record labels. Evil always triumphs, because good is dumb.
Buy an RIAA album! Now with 50% more evil!
'This is a victory for consumer choice -- it ultimately protects consumers' right to control what they see on their computer screens.'
Considering that many ad-ware and spy systems disguise themselves as fun download toys or much needed upgrades...
Disclosure: I don't listen to modern music, except when in the company of others. I do not download music in any form. I do not buy music in any form. The following is casual observation
Music today is too simplistic to deserve a lot of money.
Most mass-marketed songs have a simple beat, and a half dozen notes and/or chords, played ad nauseum.
The lyrics frequently make no sense. Not the airy, ethereal nonsense of the 60s. I mean garbled, like the "artist" is purposely trying to sound like s/he can't sing clearly.
Many songs are nothing but shock value. "Profanity" can be used in an artistic way, but when it rises past a certain point it becomes pointless.
Even 20 years ago, music was better. I don't particularly like anything made in the past 60 years, but even music from the 1970s is more musical than the cacaphony produced today.
This may be right on. Re-usable is not as important as robust and safe.
We went to the moon in disposable spacecraft. The simple shape of the Apollo modules is probably a step in the right direction from the current shuttle. A single heat shield with no weak points is probably a better idea than a wing.
Considering that NASA only launches once or twice a year anyway, an extremely reliable one-shot system is probably the way to go.