He should have been fired AND prosecuted and given the stiffest possible penalty (in these cases, where government officials break the law, double the normal maximum penalty should be mandatory) with an extremely public trial.
Actually, he was. The guy didn't want to press charges because he wasn't injured. I agree, though that it certainly hurts the public trust.
That certainly doesn't make it any better, quite the opposite really. Somehow, I missed that in the news story, and SGT England is largely blocked from view by the sign and doorway.
It'd be nice, but when they are the one doing the bad stuff, I doubt they will go for it. A lot of stores do that, like Finish Line. Of course, when you need it, they can't give it to you, because only the District Manager has access.
You're right, I don't have a medical degree or a sociology degree. Working full time, I can only carry 6 credit hours per semester; so I'm still working on it.
I am talking from my experience... having fought with more drunks and heroin addicts than stoners. Also, seeing a few friends get fired and/or divorced from alcoholism. Let's not forget about OUIL's (what most states call DWI).
Also, I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I go around looking for kids toking up to beat. Possession is illegal, so when I come across it, I do something. Usually with marijuana, it's dump it down a storm drain. Arresting someone for any drug may do all sorts of damage to their future prospects, and I don't want to do that, but at the same time, it is illegal and I recieved a complaint from someone... It's a Catch 22. If I do nothing about the things people call me for, I lose the public trust; if I take action, people like you (and yourself) call me a fascist (and many other colorful names... my favorite is "God d**n white racist motherf**king honky cracker pig")
The problem I have with making decisions at work about whether a law is "right" or "wrong" is that may lead to a slippery slope. Should I not take people into custody for assault because the victim had it coming? If a gang banger ends up dead, should we not investigate the murder? Where does it stop? Have I just taken your argument to a place it shouldn't have gone?
That doesn't address what the GP was saying. If you legalized it...you wouldn't have the problem of it in your 'front yard'. Look at the example of the legal place for it in Nevada...what is it, the mustang ranch or something? Is contained there..place of business..girls are health monitored, etc. If the war on drugs was done away with, much of the money (and violence assoc. with it) would disappear. We'd unclog our justice system, and make lots more room for truly violent offenders in jail.
There are a lot of hookers in Las Vegas (last I heard, it was still illegal in Clark County). That is a supply/demand issue. Higher demand due to tourists and such. You are right, though. Stoners usually don't have the desire to be violent. Alcoholics do, as do users of PCP/herion/crack/etc.
Well, from what I've known of people who've had their cars stolen, the reason you'd never hear anything like that is, the usual answer the cops give them is..."you'll never see your car again"...or that it isn't a high priority for them to try to find it and to just chalk it up and gone.
It isn't as high as say, finding murderers, but most of the UDAA (what we call auto theft in Michigan) reports I've taken, the cars are found somewhere within a week or two. Maybe in my area we don't have a lot of chop shops. Anyway, I meant that DV victims tend to be the ones that don't appreciate you doing what they asked you to do.
Somehow, I did miss something again. I never said that I support those laws, merely that I enforce them in my professional capacity. I get paid in part to enforce laws, not make policy decisions. That is best left to private citizens (like you and me when I am not on duty).
When people mention legalization, they tend to mean only marijuana. I myself, wouldn't mind seeing booze go the way of the dodo... I've seen the bottle ruin more lives than the joint or pipe. That may be though because it is legal, and those people have addiction prone personalities, and that was what got them hooked. Maybe they would have ruined themselves for crack if you could buy it at 7-11.
I have a few problems with the videos... No time stamps. As in how much time elapsed? the news stories make it sound like they went from calm to beating instantaneously. The video starts with the baton swings...
Also, SGT England describes the beating, but does not give his account of what happened. There are two sides to every story, and I don't think we've even gotten one here. He was absolutely right to challenge someone claiming to be an Army officer.
Injuries to eyes and ribs. That is poor training I'd say. The arms I can see, since that is what people usually use to protect themselves. My baton training was always to strike the femoral or common peroneal motor nerve points.
The Tazer? I'd use the Tazer over a baton, much less risk of injury. The claim he was shot three times? That's why some companies make those kinds of devices that record each and every use.
I don't see how the two cops haven't been suspended....
No, but that's a problem because of the illegality of prostitution. Legalize it, and you can zone it into sane business/industrial districts like all other "objectionable" business.
I'm not sure I see the pimps/hookers/dealers/johns/users respecting that since, they don't abide by the current regulation of the behavior (ie, prohibition of it)
No, I hate that idiocy on it's face. Now, I will always wear a seatbelt as it's idiotic not to, but it's not my place in a free country to tell others how to be safe at the force of a gun.
It is pretty hard to convey sarcasm in writing, which is what I was going for.
And that is the problem right there. For a country to be free, you cannot just "fish" for crime. There has to be a proper moral underpinning. Why do you hate America and our wonderful freedoms?
Here again, something was missing, probably my mistake... When you patrol, and you see a drug deal go down, and the people in the area constantly ask the chief, who in turn asks you, to do what you can about it... you go do what you can about it. Maybe fishing isn't the best analogy as it may imply baiting the criminals? What I meant was that every case is not going to be a forcible rape or murder, sometimes, you have to settle for making someone's world a little better vice making the world at large a better place.
I do not hate our wonderful freedoms. If I did, I doubt that I would have spent six years in the Marines, re-upped in the National Guard, and work in the private sector as a cop. The system isn't perfect, far from it, but it is better than everything that came before it. Hopefully, whatever is next will be even better.
And as someone who has had to call the police on a DV problem, I didn't hate them. I actually liked the police that responded - they dealt with the situation quite professionally. I do see how that could be a problem in many cases, though, and unfortunately, there's no great solution to that one...
Not every DV victim has responded violently; what I meant was that I have yet to hear someone say something to the effect of "F**k you for getting my stolen car back!" The only solution there is for the victim to hit rock bottom, which all too often is the morgue. They don't seem to get that it only gets worse... but then abusers tend to seek out those that will take the abuse. Maybe if I didn't care it wouldn't bug me so much. I may be a bit jaded, but part of me still wants to save the world.
Do away with the things people hate the cops for, like the War On (some) Drugs, idiotically stupid traffic enforcement, enforcement of morality, etc, and people will like the cops again.
Having had the passenger side of my car caved in by someone on a cell phone (and coming out unscathed thanks to my seatbelt), I wholeheartedly support traffic crackdowns. Sometimes people need to lose a little money to understand how important some things are. As for morality crimes... do you want hookers turning tricks in your front yard? I suspect not. Do you want to live next to a dope house? If you're an addict, it's convenient...
Nobody hates the cops, everyone loves the cops, until they do something and we have to call them on it... Everyone loves seatbelt enforcement; they save lives, right? Until we catch you not wearing your seatbelt; now we should be out catching "real criminals." Policework is like fishing, you cast your line, and reel in the bites as they come, Big One or not.
The only victims I've ever had that hate me are domestic violence victims. DV's are almost as much trouble as juvenile arrests. Juvies, there's a lot of paperwork. DV's get violent quick...
It's like it dawns on them, "If my baby daddy go to jail, I ain't got no job, how'ma gonna eat?" (that's not a typo, it's a quote) Then they attack you, 10 seconds after they yell, "I want that mothaf***a in jail!"
That way, you'll have less dangerous car chases and foot [pursuits], as well as less scumbags walking the street.
But many more shootings, and no matter how good you are on the range... it's a whole different ball game on the street. I don't just mean people running, but cars, houses, etc that are beyond the "bad guy" that you didn't hit because firing while running/driving, with your adrenaline going, is exponentially more difficult. Shooting standing still in a stress situation is pretty freaking hard. It looks cool when people do that in the movies, but that's Hollywood.
You say the cops should be allowed to shoot someone in the back? When they are running through an empty field in the middle of nowhere? OK. When the bad guy runs through a school playground at recess? Probably not... because the risk of hitting a kid is way too high.
Innocent people don't run, at least not in my experience. People who run tend to be those that think their freedom is all they have to lose. They may be running from a 1st degree murder rap, $50000 in back child support, or th $50 bond loitering warrant they never took care of...
Besides, on a purely practical note, after the police finish beating the crap out of you and your friend(s), how hard is it for them to confiscate and destroy a recording device?
Because who knows who out there that they didn't see is also recording?
I just wonder how many of these tapes that make into court will show the incident from beginning to end, or only the part that shows what the person who recorded it wants you to see... just like the evening news. Like with a lot of stores CCTV systems, when it comes time to grab the tape, and the store employee is accused of assaulting someone... all of a sudden they "forgot" to put a tape in that day.
It could be good or bad, cameras don't know how to lie.
The major problem with copyright law is the copyright holders.
The copyright holders often have piracy hotlines that you can call to report bootleggers. So you call up the holder and say. "Hey, this Ofc so-and-so with the *blank* Police Department. We got a guy here with 200 copies of *blank*. You guys want to press charges?" The reply is always, "No, that's not really worth it to us; it's not enough."
If the victim doesn't care, why should we? Yeah, it's illegal and the bootleggers know it. They hide, they try to weasel out of stuff, which is always funny because the victim never gives a damn.
I had a guy who got hit with a car, but didn't want to press charges because he wasn't hurt. He won't testify, why bother with the arrest, report, evidence gathering, court time...? Then he complains the cops don't want to do anything. We're not the ones who don't want to do anything. No victim, no crime
I think it was Eisenhower who said, "The soldier above all other prays for peace, for it is he who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war."
No, wait... that was MacArthur, but it still holds true.
One cop even stuck his foot in the door. I don't know if that counts as breaking and entering in that particular city, but if so, the cop did it.
I'm not sure about New Hampshire, but in Michigan, if he merely stuck his foot in the door, and had no intent to commit a larceny or other felony therein, he was not Breaking and Entering.
Breaking and Entering requires some alteration of tjhe structure in question, this could be the classic smashing open a window, or just opening it -- Breaking. Then you must insert some part or all of your body inside -- Entering. MCL 750.110 & CJI2d 25.1
One question I have: if communication between reporter and source is truly anonymous then how does any reporter know if the information is legitmate?
Probably the same way that the cops validate anonymous tips... do a little legwork to verify it yourself. If your anonymous source provides you with information, and you verify it; it must be true.
Otherwise, you are right, there would be no way to know it. Hopefully, a reporter (this includes bloggers) would not publish information that they do not know to be true. If they do that, one would hope that the public at large has enough brains to not trust that particular news outlet.
Ever since they took to driving around in cars this bond has been broken and they now just respond to calls without the humanity behind it.
You have a point there. I had a Criminal Justice Professor (who retired as the Head of the Homicide Division of Detroit), who told us the two worst things to happen to the police were airconditioned cars and mirrored sunglasses. They serve to cut you of from the public.
That is why I enjoy doing foot patrol more, roll with at least the driver's window down (even in winter), and don't wear mirrored sunglasses.
So, if the police are acting illegally by not having a warrant to search my house and asking to search it anyway, I'm obstructing and this law makes it legal?
Actually, any officer can walk up to you and inquire about any illegal activity you may be up to. If you refuse consent to search, and one of the exclusions to the search warrant rule do not apply, then the search would be illegal (if you consent, you're an idiot). In this case, any evidence gained would be thrown out at an evidenciary hearing (which even a public defender can manage; you're a fool if you represent yourself). No evidence, the People cannot meet their burden of proof, and thus the case is dismissed.
I think what may be the intention of the law is to discourage people from physically resisting, and to pursue other means (lawsuit) to recover damages. There may be a lot of abuse out there now, but it is not anywhere near the levels it was at when the Constitution and the Union were formed.
Just to be safe, though, you may want to rethink whatever it is that you're doing that has the cops asking to search you house/car/whatever.
I can safely say that I personally have never intimidated anyone into coughing up the truth; I have however, tricked boatloads of people into doing just that, because, well the vast majority of criminals are about as sharp as a balloon.
Comedy aside, when I ask someone for their name, usually I don't care what name they give me, I won't bother to verify it. Also, the vast majority of criminals don't carry their ID's with them.
I wouldn't say I view everyone as "guilty until proven innocent." I see hundreds, maybe even thousands of people everyday that I never think twice about.
Now the guy who watches my every move, keeps on approaching people, looking over his shoulder, and everyone who he approaches is looking around, wait there goes a hand to hand exchange.... that guy I will definately think is up to something. Why, because he does all the things I did when I was trying to get away with stuff.
Anyway, another ignorant comment from someone who, more likely than not, never rode in the front of a patrol car. Freakin' street lawyers, man.
Slashdot Mirror
Obligatory Homer Simpson quote:
"HAHAHA, it's funny cuz it's not me."
or "HAHAHA, it's funny cuz I don't know him."
Maybe I'm just a heartless human being, but those dumb asses deserve to be made the object of ridicule.
Actually, he was. The guy didn't want to press charges because he wasn't injured. I agree, though that it certainly hurts the public trust.
That certainly doesn't make it any better, quite the opposite really. Somehow, I missed that in the news story, and SGT England is largely blocked from view by the sign and doorway.
It'd be nice, but when they are the one doing the bad stuff, I doubt they will go for it. A lot of stores do that, like Finish Line. Of course, when you need it, they can't give it to you, because only the District Manager has access.
You're right, I don't have a medical degree or a sociology degree. Working full time, I can only carry 6 credit hours per semester; so I'm still working on it.
I am talking from my experience... having fought with more drunks and heroin addicts than stoners. Also, seeing a few friends get fired and/or divorced from alcoholism. Let's not forget about OUIL's (what most states call DWI).
Also, I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I go around looking for kids toking up to beat. Possession is illegal, so when I come across it, I do something. Usually with marijuana, it's dump it down a storm drain. Arresting someone for any drug may do all sorts of damage to their future prospects, and I don't want to do that, but at the same time, it is illegal and I recieved a complaint from someone... It's a Catch 22. If I do nothing about the things people call me for, I lose the public trust; if I take action, people like you (and yourself) call me a fascist (and many other colorful names... my favorite is "God d**n white racist motherf**king honky cracker pig")
The problem I have with making decisions at work about whether a law is "right" or "wrong" is that may lead to a slippery slope. Should I not take people into custody for assault because the victim had it coming? If a gang banger ends up dead, should we not investigate the murder? Where does it stop? Have I just taken your argument to a place it shouldn't have gone?
There are a lot of hookers in Las Vegas (last I heard, it was still illegal in Clark County). That is a supply/demand issue. Higher demand due to tourists and such. You are right, though. Stoners usually don't have the desire to be violent. Alcoholics do, as do users of PCP/herion/crack/etc.
It isn't as high as say, finding murderers, but most of the UDAA (what we call auto theft in Michigan) reports I've taken, the cars are found somewhere within a week or two. Maybe in my area we don't have a lot of chop shops. Anyway, I meant that DV victims tend to be the ones that don't appreciate you doing what they asked you to do.
Somehow, I did miss something again. I never said that I support those laws, merely that I enforce them in my professional capacity. I get paid in part to enforce laws, not make policy decisions. That is best left to private citizens (like you and me when I am not on duty).
When people mention legalization, they tend to mean only marijuana. I myself, wouldn't mind seeing booze go the way of the dodo... I've seen the bottle ruin more lives than the joint or pipe. That may be though because it is legal, and those people have addiction prone personalities, and that was what got them hooked. Maybe they would have ruined themselves for crack if you could buy it at 7-11.
I have a few problems with the videos... No time stamps. As in how much time elapsed? the news stories make it sound like they went from calm to beating instantaneously. The video starts with the baton swings...
Also, SGT England describes the beating, but does not give his account of what happened. There are two sides to every story, and I don't think we've even gotten one here. He was absolutely right to challenge someone claiming to be an Army officer.
Injuries to eyes and ribs. That is poor training I'd say. The arms I can see, since that is what people usually use to protect themselves. My baton training was always to strike the femoral or common peroneal motor nerve points.
The Tazer? I'd use the Tazer over a baton, much less risk of injury. The claim he was shot three times? That's why some companies make those kinds of devices that record each and every use.
I don't see how the two cops haven't been suspended....
That is some piss poor supervision... a guy in our department got fired for that. Well, he just hit the guy once, but still. Piss poor.
I'm not sure I see the pimps/hookers/dealers/johns/users respecting that since, they don't abide by the current regulation of the behavior (ie, prohibition of it)
It is pretty hard to convey sarcasm in writing, which is what I was going for.
Here again, something was missing, probably my mistake... When you patrol, and you see a drug deal go down, and the people in the area constantly ask the chief, who in turn asks you, to do what you can about it... you go do what you can about it. Maybe fishing isn't the best analogy as it may imply baiting the criminals? What I meant was that every case is not going to be a forcible rape or murder, sometimes, you have to settle for making someone's world a little better vice making the world at large a better place.
I do not hate our wonderful freedoms. If I did, I doubt that I would have spent six years in the Marines, re-upped in the National Guard, and work in the private sector as a cop. The system isn't perfect, far from it, but it is better than everything that came before it. Hopefully, whatever is next will be even better.
Not every DV victim has responded violently; what I meant was that I have yet to hear someone say something to the effect of "F**k you for getting my stolen car back!" The only solution there is for the victim to hit rock bottom, which all too often is the morgue. They don't seem to get that it only gets worse... but then abusers tend to seek out those that will take the abuse. Maybe if I didn't care it wouldn't bug me so much. I may be a bit jaded, but part of me still wants to save the world.
In that particular case, the owner of the store was the suspect, and known to us through many prior dealings as a shady dbag.
Alas, some nuance of communication is lost on the internet.
Me, too, but I like the exercise, and they're so much more cooperative when they're tired.
Having had the passenger side of my car caved in by someone on a cell phone (and coming out unscathed thanks to my seatbelt), I wholeheartedly support traffic crackdowns. Sometimes people need to lose a little money to understand how important some things are. As for morality crimes... do you want hookers turning tricks in your front yard? I suspect not. Do you want to live next to a dope house? If you're an addict, it's convenient...
Nobody hates the cops, everyone loves the cops, until they do something and we have to call them on it... Everyone loves seatbelt enforcement; they save lives, right? Until we catch you not wearing your seatbelt; now we should be out catching "real criminals." Policework is like fishing, you cast your line, and reel in the bites as they come, Big One or not.
The only victims I've ever had that hate me are domestic violence victims. DV's are almost as much trouble as juvenile arrests. Juvies, there's a lot of paperwork. DV's get violent quick...
It's like it dawns on them, "If my baby daddy go to jail, I ain't got no job, how'ma gonna eat?" (that's not a typo, it's a quote) Then they attack you, 10 seconds after they yell, "I want that mothaf***a in jail!"
That way, you'll have less dangerous car chases and foot [pursuits], as well as less scumbags walking the street.
But many more shootings, and no matter how good you are on the range... it's a whole different ball game on the street. I don't just mean people running, but cars, houses, etc that are beyond the "bad guy" that you didn't hit because firing while running/driving, with your adrenaline going, is exponentially more difficult. Shooting standing still in a stress situation is pretty freaking hard. It looks cool when people do that in the movies, but that's Hollywood.
You say the cops should be allowed to shoot someone in the back? When they are running through an empty field in the middle of nowhere? OK. When the bad guy runs through a school playground at recess? Probably not... because the risk of hitting a kid is way too high.
Innocent people don't run, at least not in my experience. People who run tend to be those that think their freedom is all they have to lose. They may be running from a 1st degree murder rap, $50000 in back child support, or th $50 bond loitering warrant they never took care of...
Because who knows who out there that they didn't see is also recording?
I just wonder how many of these tapes that make into court will show the incident from beginning to end, or only the part that shows what the person who recorded it wants you to see... just like the evening news. Like with a lot of stores CCTV systems, when it comes time to grab the tape, and the store employee is accused of assaulting someone... all of a sudden they "forgot" to put a tape in that day.
It could be good or bad, cameras don't know how to lie.
The copyright holders often have piracy hotlines that you can call to report bootleggers. So you call up the holder and say. "Hey, this Ofc so-and-so with the *blank* Police Department. We got a guy here with 200 copies of *blank*. You guys want to press charges?" The reply is always, "No, that's not really worth it to us; it's not enough."
If the victim doesn't care, why should we? Yeah, it's illegal and the bootleggers know it. They hide, they try to weasel out of stuff, which is always funny because the victim never gives a damn.
I had a guy who got hit with a car, but didn't want to press charges because he wasn't hurt. He won't testify, why bother with the arrest, report, evidence gathering, court time...? Then he complains the cops don't want to do anything. We're not the ones who don't want to do anything. No victim, no crime
I think it was Eisenhower who said, "The soldier above all other prays for peace, for it is he who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war."
No, wait... that was MacArthur, but it still holds true.
One cop even stuck his foot in the door. I don't know if that counts as breaking and entering in that particular city, but if so, the cop did it.
I'm not sure about New Hampshire, but in Michigan, if he merely stuck his foot in the door, and had no intent to commit a larceny or other felony therein, he was not Breaking and Entering.
Breaking and Entering requires some alteration of tjhe structure in question, this could be the classic smashing open a window, or just opening it -- Breaking. Then you must insert some part or all of your body inside -- Entering. MCL 750.110 & CJI2d 25.1
One question I have: if communication between reporter and source is truly anonymous then how does any reporter know if the information is legitmate?
Probably the same way that the cops validate anonymous tips... do a little legwork to verify it yourself. If your anonymous source provides you with information, and you verify it; it must be true.
Otherwise, you are right, there would be no way to know it. Hopefully, a reporter (this includes bloggers) would not publish information that they do not know to be true. If they do that, one would hope that the public at large has enough brains to not trust that particular news outlet.
You have a point there. I had a Criminal Justice Professor (who retired as the Head of the Homicide Division of Detroit), who told us the two worst things to happen to the police were airconditioned cars and mirrored sunglasses. They serve to cut you of from the public.
That is why I enjoy doing foot patrol more, roll with at least the driver's window down (even in winter), and don't wear mirrored sunglasses.
Actually, any officer can walk up to you and inquire about any illegal activity you may be up to. If you refuse consent to search, and one of the exclusions to the search warrant rule do not apply, then the search would be illegal (if you consent, you're an idiot). In this case, any evidence gained would be thrown out at an evidenciary hearing (which even a public defender can manage; you're a fool if you represent yourself). No evidence, the People cannot meet their burden of proof, and thus the case is dismissed.
I think what may be the intention of the law is to discourage people from physically resisting, and to pursue other means (lawsuit) to recover damages. There may be a lot of abuse out there now, but it is not anywhere near the levels it was at when the Constitution and the Union were formed.
Just to be safe, though, you may want to rethink whatever it is that you're doing that has the cops asking to search you house/car/whatever.
I can safely say that I personally have never intimidated anyone into coughing up the truth; I have however, tricked boatloads of people into doing just that, because, well the vast majority of criminals are about as sharp as a balloon. Comedy aside, when I ask someone for their name, usually I don't care what name they give me, I won't bother to verify it. Also, the vast majority of criminals don't carry their ID's with them. I wouldn't say I view everyone as "guilty until proven innocent." I see hundreds, maybe even thousands of people everyday that I never think twice about. Now the guy who watches my every move, keeps on approaching people, looking over his shoulder, and everyone who he approaches is looking around, wait there goes a hand to hand exchange.... that guy I will definately think is up to something. Why, because he does all the things I did when I was trying to get away with stuff. Anyway, another ignorant comment from someone who, more likely than not, never rode in the front of a patrol car. Freakin' street lawyers, man.
I'm against air bags on the premis that a safety device should NOT have a label on it that says, Caution: Risk of death