Cop Calls Out Another Cop

Good to see, but rare in these days.

The men in blue have become controlled by corruption, which taints their perception of their power and responsibilities.

Pol-ice are behaving like dog packs in latter years, even ganging up on unarmed citizens they deem targets.

One video of a voice box giving it straight to a mindless puppet in blue is not enough for me.

I want to see a pol-ice movement en mass, in America. Where the good guys lay the foot down against the corruption.

It IS a problemz and our society is broken enough, we don't need those "protecting & serving" it, to be equally broken.

a reply to: Skid Mark

I'm sure this guy would have no problem getting elected sheriff anywhere after this video.

Let him run things for a while.



I'm just glad there's still some cops out there willing to protect citizens over looking after their own.

a reply to: boohoo


I'm willing to be the officer doing the chastising is the senior of the two. Assuming the other one is a cop and at all, and not a security guard.

I know that case is a fun one to trot out but you lack context (which I'm sure is entirely unintentional, of course). The Constitution and Bill of Rights were, in simple terms, created to tell the government what they MAY NOT do. They weren't written to tell the government "you have to do this this and this for the people." They are written in such a way that the government is told "when it comes to this area, the government may not do this, this, or this." That's why deprivation of life and liberty without due process by the government or an agent of the government is a civil rights violation. Being killed during a strong arm robbery is not.

The government isn't obligated to provide any services. The whole point to the court ruling you cited is the court ruled the government can't be held liable for every last freaking murder unless that murder is committed by the government. If that ruling came down any other way, the government would get sued any and every time somebody was murdered, robbed, beaten, had their car stolen, or whatever else.

Not that I expect any of that to matter to you.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The government isn't obligated to provide any services. The whole point to the court ruling you cited is the court ruled the government can't be held liable for every last freaking murder unless that murder is committed by the government. If that ruling came down any other way, the government would get sued any and every time somebody was murdered, robbed, beaten, had their car stolen, or whatever else.

Not that I expect any of that to matter to you.

But from the perspective of LEO's, the ruling means that they may "pick and choose" when they attempt to "save someone from death or injury" because the ruling does not obligate them to act. It is that perspective, which LEO's are allowed to legally take, that should matter to the average citizen. The context from Bowers v. DeVito is very clear, the police CHOSE to not assist, despite Marguerite Anne Bowers repeatedly requesting their help and the courts then determined that the police are not liable for making the choice to not help her.

CLEARLY understanding what "services" the police are "likely" and "willing" to provide, due to constitutional ruling, is certainly an important issue, that I imagine most average citizens would like to understand. Sorry you don't like that public opinion is turning against Law Enforcement these days, due to the types of officers that Law Enforcement Agencies are CHOOSING employ, whom seem to enjoy having the legal option to "overreact". With that in mind, I'd say that these agencies can't have too many "do-gooders" eroding that legal option to "overreact" and I suspect that most officers wouldn't want to be in Law Enforcement anymore if they lost the legal means to "overreact".

But since you keep insisting otherwise, I suppose its just the reality caused by the actions of the so called "bad apples", either way, LEO's have lost the trust of general public.

a reply to: boohoo

No, that is not the perspective of LEOs.

Being inept is not the same thing as "picking and choosing."

It all goes to liability, and has nothing to do with granting law enforcement the ability to pick and choose or ignore as they see fit. No, there is no duty to protect you. So that in the event something does happen to you, you can't sue your local PD for not stopping it. That's the bottom line. Anything about how it grants law enforcement a blank check to pick and choose what they respond to is conjecture. Law enforcement can't be 100% of places 100% of the time. That's what the case law is about.

Edit for your edit - why don't you pick a subject to debate instead of trying to transition into other subjects? Debate is fun and all, but I don't much care to chase somebody all over the map as they try to make a point.

Are the ones he calls out actually cops? Or security? It would be way cooler if they are cops, but I suspect they are security guards.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
No, there is no duty to protect you.

Enough said, "no duty" = "free to ignore" because if there is no financial consequence to inaction, then certainly some "bad apples" will use that as a legal basis for "choosing", when to "render services" or not to. As was the case with Marguerite Anne Bowers and hundreds of thousands of others who's horror stories, caused by "ineptitude", we will never hear.

Also the guy being chastised in the video appears to be a sheriff's deputy, can anyone confirm this?

Honestly, can we please stop fooling ourselves, Contemporary LEOs have proven, through their actions, that they are in place to do the following and NOTHING MORE:

1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local governments authorizing their activities.
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on the behalf of the big corporations)
5. Protecting the private property and political interests of large, influential, land owners, residing within their jurisdiction, that contribute and participate in local politics.
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.

I notice the chastising officer said, "He is a good guy" like he knew him personally. So, standing up for someone you know is a good guy may be handled differently that an unknown person.

Regardless, his standing up for the Constitution and Oath he took is something we could all agree should go viral with police in general. We have seen policies like 'stop and frisk' in New York that is violating your civil rights en mass. I think they had to stop or they had to stop targeting minorities anyway. Instead they should stop targeting citizens.

And laws that allow the detention of American citizens indefinitely without due process are completely unconstitutional. The problem is you can't get a case to the Supreme or any Federal Court because you don't have standing. Standing meaning you were harmed by the law. Now, I suppose family members could have standing as they would be harmed by loss of a family member and the support they provide to their family.

We need more law enforcement and people in general to start supporting the constitution and fighting to get rid of ridiculously bad laws that violate it. I would like to see police and civil rights groups focus on that instead of individual cases because I think that would do more for the problems in law enforcement today than individual cases. And I am not lost on case law and precedent being a major force in the courts, but until citizens support the constitution by jury nullification of cases that violated the rights of the people and the mass of the citizens force their elected leaders to get rid of and quit passing unconstitutional or UNREAD laws, we won't see a resolution like we all want. Unfortunately, we are heading for more tyranny as the government moves toward more control and central planning over every aspect of your life. That is not Freedom or the Constitutional way.

This officer

a reply to: SilentE

I would bet that officer is ex-military that saw combat.

I know a lot of officers just like him.

Thanks for sharing.

The cynical side of me thinks that maybe the cop knows the person being questioned... I mean it is possible and I have personally seen cops let stuff slide just because they know the person.

originally posted by: SilentE
Hello ATS. Wasn't sure were to put this.

I watched this on LiveLeak and thought I would share it here to show that there may be hope out there after all.

This video is of a police officer in America that actually knows the rights of the citizens.

America needs a hell of a lot more officers like him. A professional.

This may have turned out to be a whole other video had he not been there. Not sure of the back story to this stop or the outcome for the citizen. From what I gathered from the audio it seems he was sitting in his car, watching the 4th July fireworks outside his house?

Here you go:

Refreshing no?

Credit: LiveLeak

Now THERE is a man I can get behind on. Finally a good and educated Officer. . S&F. You dont see this everyday.

a reply to: SilentE

I'd go to war with predator behind that cop.

Do LEO's make an oath to defend the Constitution? (If not, they should. They should also be required to understand the Constitution.)
It sounds like this guy might be former military.

Training.
You are trained to handle every situation as a threat. this goes for law enforcement more than almost any other occupation save the military. hand on the flashlight means he is preparing for possible use of force. his decision is being questioned and in his mind the situation has started to unravel. This is where morality comes into play. Believing in something and sticking to the principles that you sign on to protect. Imposing restriction on your action could mean the difference between life and death. Your morality and those principles may save the life of a 12 year old boy pointing a toy gun at you that looks just as real as the genuine article, Or it may vary well cost you your life when that same 12 year is pointing an actual 357 and is a pull of a trigger from taking yours. It is a roll of the dice to how it would all plays out. But each decision will impact the rest of your life.
a reply to: Gothmog

a reply to: SilentE

You all do realize that the "officer" the cop in the front is talking to is a security guard and not a sworn officer? The green flashing lights designate this.

a reply to: staticfl
I came here to say this.

Gun on his hip is a taser.

The officer swore an oath.
The security guard didn't.

Here is the problem...its not rare for cops to be like this. This is the every day norm. Unfortunately the ones that do bad get all the headlines. So it brings to the forefront all the bad. As you can see this is only a couple pages long of discussion. Had this been an event that turned bad this would be 10+ pages long. It is refreshing to see threads like this though

a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Just because every interaction like this is not recorded doesn't mean that it is a rare occurrence.

This officer deserves a medal. Thats how heroes behave.

a reply to: boohoo

Enjoy your mental gymnastics.

Read the oath that local law enforcement takes upon swearing in. The one that most of them adhere to on a daily basis.

But I know that's not nearly as fun as misinterpreting and misconstruing legal decisions to support your narrative.

Ta-ta