An appeal from a cop...

reply to post by endisnighe


ANY government officials? Not one single government official EVER gets punishment more than suspended with pay? You know this for a fact? You must, since you made sure point out this FACT in bold letters.

Honestly, how can anyone expect to debate this kind of logic. Anyone with the simplest understanding of debate realizes the pitfalls of using such absolute arguments. How can you possibly expect to make such a far reaching, broad-stroked claim, call it a fact and expect to be taken as a legitimate debater?

Makes sense to me -- let's see what this documentary has to say:

topdocumentaryfilms.com...

However, if nothing else, cop watch can and will and does inform citizens of their rights as citizens. Informs citizens of what is proper police conduct and what is improper police conduct. Informs citizens of what you can do to protect yourself in case you get in any type of predicament with the police. The Streets are Watching is a 50 minute video that takes a fresh look at police accountability through the eyes of three communities; Denver, Cincinnati and Berkeley. Independent filmmaker, Jacob Crawford, weaves three cities responses to police brutality into a single tale of community empowerment and direct action. Within an amazing collection of footage that portrays police conduct and misconduct, the film conveys basic legal concepts that can provide practical help to groups and individuals seeking a clearer understanding of their rights when dealing with police. The film is divided into sections that explain our basic rights, tactics for documenting police activity and ideas for further action and organizing.

Originally posted by JWH44


First of all, I agree; pursuits are one of the most dangerous things to deal with in this field. Our pursuit policy dictates that it is the responsibility of the officer and the supervisors to weigh the inherent danger of the pursuit against the danger of allowing the subject to escape. For example; a person commits an armed robbery and shoots three people during the robbery. He flees and is spotted driving by a police officers. A pursuit develops. The officer, seeing the the subject is driving erratically, calls off the pursuit. He has the license plate of the vehicle; surely it belongs to the person driving it, right? It has to. No one ever drives a vehicle that is not registered to him. The officer has his address, he'll go pick up this murderer at his house later that afternoon.

No longer being pursued, the subject decides it is time to switch vehicles. He carjacks the next truck he sees at a stoplight, killing the driver. Now, you tell me; how much outrage would there be directed at the police for allowing this person to get away and commit that carjacking?

Is this an extreme example? Maybe, maybe not. The point is, you have to weigh the benefit of apprehending the subject against the danger of continuing the pursiut. Does it end tragically sometimes? But none of it would have been an issue if the original crime had never been committed, so who is to blame?

I agree that if a murder had been committed, the police should have gone all out to stop the person. But, I found out some more today. The same person had another incident with the same police about a week ago. They had stopped her on a suspected driving with a suspended license. They were aware of who she was and where she lived. I think that all parties got mad at each other for some reason and decided they were going to fix each other. The police woman was not severely as was first reported, just scrapes and was NOT dragged under the van, but she had her arm inside the van, maybe trying to take the keys out or turn it off. I also found out that the woman was not killed, but in ICU in critical condition. The other woman that was hit has some broken ribs and collar bone and a punctured lung and will be out of the hospital in a couple of days.

I think that both parties had a grudge with the other for some reason and it got out of hand. I don't think this person would have been an immediate danger to people until all the police started chasing her. She should not have ran, but she did. The police could have let her go and picked her up later because they knew who she was.

reply to post by JWH44


Yes, I painted with a broad brush. Sorry, is there not UNION regulations in regards to what can be done to police officers when confronted by accusations of impropriety?

Let us use yours for example. Can you tell me what is the standard protocol.

As for the ones I know of in the City of Fresno Building Inspectors. That official for 3 years was making errors left and right. I and many other builders complained about him and so did many other Building Inspectors.

Tell me why it is SOP, for these contracts for public officials to be so lenient on the corrupt and incompetent.

I know why it is, I would like you to tell me though. Admit the problem.

Lawyers and lawsuits.

Ever wonder why back in our history, the Real 13th Amendment was buried?

Lawyers and law. Two incongruent things.

Guilt by association is what I like to say. I do not hang out with criminals, do you?

If we only had some more laws, some more control, some more government, some more taxes, some more this, some more that, everything would be fine.

This is the stance the American People LIKE ME want you to hear.

Leave me the frell alone.

Sorry again for the wide brush, I should quit using it. But I guess us civilians/CI's/subjects/right wing terrorists/left wing loons/anti government anarchists/[plug in given denigration of the week government code word] are sick of the government and the control freaks in it.

Originally posted by JWH44

Originally posted by Niccawhois



STEREOTYPICALLY POLICEMEN ARE SADISTIC!
The very nature of the job attracts the most sadistic members of our society to put it simply!

The most sadistic members of our society... Really? You can make that absolute statement with a straight face and expect me to give credibility to your view point? I don't know about you, but when I think about the MOST sadistic members of our society, I think about people that kidnap and torture children for, rape little old ladies or like to molest little boys at summer camp. But hey, I guess you have a different opinion about what MOST sadistic means.

My opinion is based on the actual definition of the word,
:Sadism is the derivation of pleasure as a result of inflicting pain or watching pain inflicted on others.

Cops rape little lady's too(some of whom are handcuffed at the time.)Most of whom are their wives that are too scared to leave them.

You know exactly what I meant by that, and I suspect you realize I am correct in my assumption that per capita cops are more likely to be SADIST'S than members of the general population!

Truth hurts, and its terribly hard for a man to admit he is wrong...

Yeah the Chicago cop torture center against African-Americans was exposed on democracynow --

www.democracynow.org...

www.democracynow.org...

2 Black Prisoners Jailed Under Torture-Linked Chicago Police Commander Freed In Chicago, two prisoners jailed under the watch of the disgraced former Police Commander Jon Burge have been exonerated and set free after more than twenty years. Ronald Kitchen and Marvin Reeves, both African Americans, were convicted for the 1988 murders of five people. But prosecutors now say there’s insufficient evidence linking them to the crimes. The initial case relied on a prisoner who wrongly claimed to have spoken to Kitchen and was also granted an early release for his testimony. Kitchen was also badly beaten while jailed in a prison known for the systematic torture of dozens of African American males by Chicago police officers. Burge is meanwhile awaiting trial for allegations he lied in a civil suit brought by victims of the torture committed under his command.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by drew hempel]

reply to post by richierich

Thanks for the links, I must had missed the one about the guy getting tasered.

About that ....

I wonder where the policeman...er... state trooper got his law degree?

I, just curious here, would love to know what law states that humans are held liable to follow the instructions of police officers to the letter or be placed under arrest?



If someone could show me a link to where I can see that law, I would be much abliged.



[edit on 6-3-2010 by UDntNoMe]

reply to post by JWH44


whatever, think about what we the community see sometimes. I live in a small town where your fellow law enforcement guys do WHATEVER THEY PLEASE regardless of what someone's "rights" are. You took on the job knowing what the deal was.

Well when people say police are thugs or pigs, it doesn't mean all, I have met my share of great and respectful officers but have no been fortunate enough to be graced by a "pig"

The only time a cop goes to jail is because he angered a ranking officer, or not investigating would implicate other ranking officers.
They break the code of silence they get set up or a favorite a past crime that was covered up mysteriously becomes active and he goes to prison.

Whistle blowers of any sort will try to be destroyed.

That is just how it is jack and theirs not much the public will do about it.It is the cost of doing business. It happens in every leo entity.

I have many COP s that I work with but just like everyone else some BAD some are GOOD.............

Well when people say police are thugs or pigs, it doesn't mean all, I have met my share of great and respectful officers but have no been fortunate enough to be graced by a "pig"

Good post sir; you had some good points and you definitely made one point clear: Law enforcement officers should get the respect they deserve. I definitely feel that two of this countries most under payed careers are law enforcement and teaching. It's sick how under payed you guys are sometimes.

The biggest problem with law enforcement is that sometimes there isn't a good enough job done of "weeding" out those that should never wear a badge. There are people that go and try to put the badge on for the wrong reasons, and these are the cops and officers who smear the shield and give all law enforcement a bad name. There is a fine line between good cop and bad cop, and it doesn't always have to do with corruption and bribery. In my eyes a "dumb, ignorant cop" is a bad cop. In my eyes, the ENTIRE DEA is a joke. A filthy, corrupt nasty little joke filled with men who are bored and have nothing better to do. Any law enforcement entity who believes wasting time and money resources on busting state legal medical marijuana dispensaries INSTEAD of busting meth houses and meth cooks should be swept under the carpet. The sooner the DEA is gone the sooner the US has a chance to get past the Bull# "War on Drugs" mistake. Anyway, don't want to rant here, just trying to make a few examples of law enforcement gone dumb and why they get a bad name sometimes.

I am a former Marine who almost became a cop then didn't at the last reason for the same reason I walked away from my government work; I hated being a hypocrite. I knew that I wouldn't last long in a system that protects it's criminals; it would have only been a matter of time until I found myself behind the same bars that I was putting people behind. Why would I be in jail? I know because of my personal feelings and beliefs that it would only be a matter of time before I took the law into my own hands. I respect the officers of the law that also hate the system but have learned how to control themselves and their impulses. Keep up the good work.

Originally posted by drew hempel
Makes sense to me -- let's see what this documentary has to say:

topdocumentaryfilms.com...

However, if nothing else, cop watch can and will and does inform citizens of their rights as citizens. Informs citizens of what is proper police conduct and what is improper police conduct. Informs citizens of what you can do to protect yourself in case you get in any type of predicament with the police. The Streets are Watching is a 50 minute video that takes a fresh look at police accountability through the eyes of three communities; Denver, Cincinnati and Berkeley. Independent filmmaker, Jacob Crawford, weaves three cities responses to police brutality into a single tale of community empowerment and direct action. Within an amazing collection of footage that portrays police conduct and misconduct, the film conveys basic legal concepts that can provide practical help to groups and individuals seeking a clearer understanding of their rights when dealing with police. The film is divided into sections that explain our basic rights, tactics for documenting police activity and ideas for further action and organizing.

I think this site is very good for informing People of there rights, its the UK but remember British Law is the root of American an Canadian Law!

www.tpuc.org...

[edit on 6-3-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

This post is useless...its like a U.S military person trying to find a friend on Al jazeera's forum.....The only point is to gather Intel.

So i got to thinking about the whole "complaint form" argument and I have some more points I'd like to make in that regard. The videos upset me, I will admit that. But I also realized that my distaste for the videos might have been a little misplaced. To me, the most upsetting thing about the videos is the attitude of the cops in question. That is obvious. I think most of you here can agree that it is possible to rationally discuss an issue if both parties will hear the other side out. Let me clarify.

The people in the video were walking into police stations and asking for blank forms to fill out in order to file complaints of abuse against cops. On the surface, fair enough, right? Why should that be such a big deal? But if you stop and think about it for a second, ask yourself this; are we the citiizens of the United States not Constitutionally entitled to a fair trial when accused of a crime? Is not part of a fair trial the right to face your accuser? In a criminal case, the state is required to present evidence of wrongdoing against the defendant. Part of that includes testimony from the state on behalf of a specific victim.

If you were to fill out a complaint form and turn it in annonymously, what do you honestly expet to happen. If an annonymous complaint lays out allegations of abuse against a specific officer, I ask you; as the supervisor, how would you handle it? What do you have to go on? An annonymous complaint. If it were to be investigated fully, would it not be fair to say that there would have to be investigation that would involve interviewing the victim, gathering testimony and evidence? You are talking about criminal charges and specific allegations of wrongdoing. Serious charges that should be taken seriously and then handled thoroughly. How can this be done without being able to face the accuser.

I have mentioned already that I agree that there should be outside, independent investigative bodies that handle this type of situation. however, I think it is beyond the entire realm of reasonable expectation to ask for an annonymous complaint to be taken seriously and investigated seriously. The very nature of an investigation or inquest required that both sides be given the opportunity to make their case and confront the party involved.

What it seems that some people want is to be able to file an annonymous complaint and never have to face their target. File it and be done with it. If abuse really occured, I would think that you would want to present evidence of the wrongdoing to support your claim, correct? Medical reports of the injuries involved, videotape, something. But that would require you coming out of the safety of annonymity and actually confronting somebody. You can't really have it both ways. If I am wrong, please explain to me what I am missing. That is not sarcastic, I'm honestly trying to figure out how an annonymous complaint would ever go anywhere. At some point, the accuser has to get involved in the investigation for it to be legitimate.

reply to post by JWH44


A complaint form is not a criminal complaint alleging unlawful activities to warrant prosecution. It is a complaint form. Which is why you should just hand it over and stop pretending like it's important. It's reviewed internally so the code of silence still applies. It's merely a paper trail initiating a complaint against an officer for employee diciplinary action.

People need to wake up and realize the reason these cops get off is because of cowards who fail to prosecute on behalf of the citizen whether it comes in through a complaint form, or sensationilzed on the media.

If you have a complaint an officer broke the law. File a criminal complaint and prosecute. Don't fill out a "hows our service?" complaint form to the COMPANY.

Also these people aren't trying to fill out an anonymous complaint. They want the form first to ensure they aren't dismissed after disclosing personally identifying information with the officer(s) who obviously as seen in the video may violate law to harass or use intimidation of force.

It's time officers learn we do not have to identify ourselves if we have not commited a crime. Nor for them to do their jobs of handing us a form. You say it's suspicious, I say it's my right. Give me the form. You'll get my info after theres a paper trail established.


Try and be rational. If it's an ANONYMOUS complaint then there is no one to actually verify under penalty of perjury the officer did anything wrong. It's safe to assume if it's anonymous you have nothing to fear. So why not just give me the form LIKE YOU"RE REQUIRED TO BY LAW WITHOUT ME DISCLOSING MY NAME.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but you use asinine reverse psuedo logic to justify the unlawful compelling of identification to provide a form you are required to by law anyways.

Originally posted by JWH44


If you were to fill out a complaint form and turn it in annonymously, what do you honestly expet to happen. If an annonymous complaint lays out allegations of abuse against a specific officer, I ask you; as the supervisor, how would you handle it? What do you have to go on? An annonymous complaint. If it were to be investigated fully, would it not be fair to say that there would have to be investigation that would involve interviewing the victim, gathering testimony and evidence?

I think you mis-understand the request. These people are asking for a form to take with them, either to fill out at home, or perhaps with a lawyer, whatever. The feeling I get , and I'm sure the people in the vid, is that that
they are going to be judged by the cop as to the validity of the claim.

No one expects the form to be Anonymous, that would be pointless.
I'm sure the forms have , Complaintant, Accused name or badge number, then the details of the offense.

But if you are going to complain against a cop, NO ONE wants to do it in the
Lion's Den , so to speak.

This is just another way to curb ANY complaints , so again, people , citizens,
feel bullied and helpless against the Cops.

Hence , more Resentment.

reply to post by Sean48


And I addresed that in a previous post. I agree!! There is no reason not to hand out the complaint form. I acknowledged that the actions taken in the video are wrong and I think that I fairly criticized the behavior of the officers in the video. I see no harm in handing out a complaint form. If it is returned with specific allegations and evidence of wrongdoing and it is then ignored, then there are serious problems.

I see America has moved on a lot since Marshal Wyatt Earp