User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 3:16:04 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 15 minutes? I'll wait for the cliff notes. It's also interesting that they do have the time to constantly tell us they don't have the time to watch the video. Finally, how much about actively stating they have NOT watched the video is so they can feign ignorance if actually cornered and asked if they agree with or denounce the action.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 3:31:01 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My question is should a cop be crucified over every case of false arrest or do we look at circumstances surrounding it as well as harm done? zero tolerance ? First, how many crimes do we look at in that light? Speeding? You were going 75 in a 55, but no harm was done. Drunk Driving? You blew a .12 and we have a .08 limit, but no harm was done. Theft? You stole $100, but we caught you in the parking lot, so just give it back and no harm done! First off, we need to acknowledge that the government holding someone wrongly IS harm. Something like $5000 for the first minute and $1000 for every additional minute sounds like a good starting point. Extra penalties incurred if he's thrown around, or stuffed in a squad, or gets strip searched, etc. But how to you measure the harm done to the kid? Recently a parent who absolutely terrorized his own kid for youtube laughs got the kid taken away form him, so terrorizing a kid is viewed as causing harm. Next, we need to look at if the officer did any sort of de-escalation. The lack of descalation should make the results for the cop more severe. Finally, the question must be asked is it a pretty well understood (or should be pretty well understood) part of the law or something really obscure. In this case, the basics needed to detain a person should be really well understood by an officer. As should when ID can get demanded. It would be a much different situation if an officer gets called to Walmart because some guy has a tiger in his RV, and the cop arrests the guy for having a dangerous animal in public, only to later find out that actually isn't a crime hence an illegal arrest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 3:31:57 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My question is should a cop be crucified over every case of false arrest or do we look at circumstances surrounding it as well as harm done? zero tolerance ? First, how many crimes do we look at in that light? Speeding? You were going 75 in a 55, but no harm was done. Drunk Driving? You blew a .12 and we have a .08 limit, but no harm was done. Theft? You stole $100, but we caught you in the parking lot, so just give it back and no harm done! First off, we need to acknowledge that the government holding someone wrongly IS harm. Something like $5000 for the first minute and $1000 for every additional minute sounds like a good starting point. Extra penalties incurred if he's thrown around, or stuffed in a squad, or gets strip searched, etc. But how to you measure the harm done to the kid? Recently a parent who absolutely terrorized his own kid for youtube laughs got the kid taken away form him, so terrorizing a kid is viewed as causing harm. Next, we need to look at if the officer did any sort of de-escalation. The lack of descalation should make the results for the cop more severe. Finally, the question must be asked is it a pretty well understood (or should be pretty well understood) part of the law or something really obscure. In this case, the basics needed to detain a person should be really well understood by an officer. As should when ID can get demanded. It would be a much different situation if an officer gets called to Walmart because some guy has a tiger in his RV, and the cop arrests the guy for having a dangerous animal in public, only to later find out that actually isn't a crime hence an illegal arrest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 3:51:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My question is should a cop be crucified over every case of false arrest or do we look at circumstances surrounding it as well as harm done? zero tolerance ? First, how many crimes do we look at in that light? Speeding? You were going 75 in a 55, but no harm was done. Drunk Driving? You blew a .12 and we have a .08 limit, but no harm was done. Theft? You stole $100, but we caught you in the parking lot, so just give it back and no harm done! First off, we need to acknowledge that the government holding someone wrongly IS harm. Something like $5000 for the first minute and $1000 for every additional minute sounds like a good starting point. Extra penalties incurred if he's thrown around, or stuffed in a squad, or gets strip searched, etc. But how to you measure the harm done to the kid? Recently a parent who absolutely terrorized his own kid for youtube laughs got the kid taken away form him, so terrorizing a kid is viewed as causing harm. Next, we need to look at if the officer did any sort of de-escalation. The lack of de-escalation should make the results for the cop more severe. Finally, the question must be asked is it a pretty well understood (or should be pretty well understood) part of the law or something really obscure. In this case, the basics needed to detain a person should be really well understood by an officer. As should when ID can get demanded. It would be a much different situation if an officer gets called to Walmart because some guy has a tiger in his RV, and the cop arrests the guy for having a dangerous animal in public, only to later find out that actually isn't a crime hence an illegal arrest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 4:14:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Probably give sarge a little more credit for following the law vs. simply supporting their officers. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Cops get a call for a drunk driver, with description of "brown haired guy with 3 year old," and attempt to ID a dude with the 3 year old. Dude knows his rights and refuses. Cops threaten to take his kid and arrest him, and then arrest him and take his kid. The shocking conclusion: The SGT showed up, actually knows the law, manages to actually do the right thing, and cuts him loose. 8/10 for Jack knowing his rights, but should have called for a supervisor immediately. 2/10 for cops arresting for refusal to ID. 7/10 for SGT correcting the idiocy of his supervised. eta: brown hair and rating for coppers Probably give sarge a little more credit for following the law vs. simply supporting their officers. @TakeBackTheFed I think Sarge is given too much credit How many opportunities does he have or should he have had to go over the very basic concept of "for a detention you need RAS". Cops not knowing that makes the entire training and oversite staff look pretty poor. Also, Sarge tells them to give the message 'you should just give your damn ID anyways to make things go better' which IMHO is way out of bounds. Finally, should Sarge have told the officers to apologize for the mistake? Seems like if you wrongfully arrest someone, you should be apologizing not lecturing them about ways to avoid getting wrongfully arrested in the future. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 5:49:57 PM EDT
[#6]
This problem started with Karens and escalated to cops. (Badged Karens)
Fuck off to all of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 5:53:11 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This was entirely about that mask and nothing else. Whoever called it in was watching the whole time and probably jerking off. Fry that entire department of deep sea fish. Fat fucking brainless morons. That one video of the cop getting jumped in the hood while 20 people stand around and watch is about where I'm at with cops anymore. I used to support them as regular people doing a tough job, but they have shown their true colors this last year. I hope that guy gets a huge pay out. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Title should probably be "SJW lies about person with Trump Mask".  DING! DING! Didn't anybody else notice the guys mask? He was "SWAT'ed" buy some miserable fuck in the store because he's wearing a Trump mask. Can you find out via FIA who made that call so you can sue the fuck out of them? This was entirely about that mask and nothing else. Whoever called it in was watching the whole time and probably jerking off. Fry that entire department of deep sea fish. Fat fucking brainless morons. That one video of the cop getting jumped in the hood while 20 people stand around and watch is about where I'm at with cops anymore. I used to support them as regular people doing a tough job, but they have shown their true colors this last year. I hope that guy gets a huge pay out. BUT They were also counting on the police being absolute thoughtless attack dogs - and the police were predictably just that. With a reasonable police department calling someone because you don't like their political garb and cooking up a story wouldn't be successful |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 5:56:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well in this case once they realized they fucked up they stood around and debated if there was anything else they could charge him with before cutting him loose. I say fire those shitheads. That's not the sort of law enforcement that anyone wants or needs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My question is should a cop be crucified over every case of false arrest or do we look at circumstances surrounding it as well as harm done? zero tolerance ? Well in this case once they realized they fucked up they stood around and debated if there was anything else they could charge him with before cutting him loose. I say fire those shitheads. That's not the sort of law enforcement that anyone wants or needs. Plus, it's not like the arrest was based on an obscure point of law. It hinges on 2 things. First - necessity of showing ID and Second - what's require to detain someone. Being 'ignorant' on that is like a traffic cop arresting someone because they think a yellow light and a red light are the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 6:17:07 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's a difference between this explanation and saying that you'd watch any cop get "jumped on" and not do anything because you don't like them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You want to try again?  What are we supposed to do? Shrug our shoulders and go back to licking their boots? They wield immense power to fuck with people, when it is misused the hammer of justice needs to fall so ducking hard that the next fat deep sea fish triple chin motherfucker that thinks they're going to harass someone "because they can" will think twice before doing so. These idiots work for us, they are not here to harass and intimidate people. We are way past needing to recalibrate where the line is. There's a difference between this explanation and saying that you'd watch any cop get "jumped on" and not do anything because you don't like them. It's funny, because there's all sorts of video evidence where a cop is doing the jumping on an innocent person, like this one in Boyle Heights and the other cops just sit there and let it happen...even though it's their JOBS to enforce the law. here's another one. Again, so if cops whose JOB it is to enforce the law and there stop an assault can just stand there and let it happen or this one where the jail guard starts beating a guy and the cops follow laughing - even though as law enforcement it's their JOB to stop it. And yet there's an expectation that if a cop was loosing a fight then Joe Average citizen is supposed to jump in, even though it's clear that cops wouldn't help Joe Average if it was a COP who was beating him illegally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 6:25:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Okay, I'll admit it, I don't understand your story. They had a description that matched your son, and a tag number that came back to one of your cars? Unless I misunderstand, that sounds a lot like he did it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I had something like this happen years ago . Except that it involved one of sons . Cops showed up at the front door one morning and said that they had a report of someone vandalizing cars in the neighborhood . And they had a tag number . And a description of the person . Supposed to match my son. They proceeded to try and hand me a long line of BS . Finally after I had a much of their lies as I could stand I called my wife and brought her up to speed on the happenings . And I made sure to reaffirm how the car was titled . I turned to the officers and told them to leave my property as quickly as they could . You see all our cars and trucks are titled in my wife's name . And have been for years . Busted . gd They had a description that matched your son, and a tag number that came back to one of your cars? Unless I misunderstand, that sounds a lot like he did it. @runcible The story wasn't very clear but this is how I read it Description was 'supposed to match my son' Key there was 'supposed to' which either means the description didn't match his son at all - or it did because it was really generic "20-25 year old white male medium height medium build brown hair wearing jeans and t-shirt. Also- the tags. If officer had been told tag number by the witness and ran tag number they would have ended up at wife's house. So that was clearly a lie. Most likely cops simply wrote the tag down seeing the car in the driveway and then lied about the tag number being part of the witness statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 6:41:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A LOT of that "training" budget goes to send admin to week-long conferences and classes in vacation-destination cities. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This type of ignorance of such a basic part of your job is unacceptable. Departments spend large budgets on training. If your officers don't understand the basics of their job. How are they supposed be trusted to handle complex issues. That handled poorly can result in severe consequences. The sad thing is. Every officer there went along with violating this man's constitutional rights and traumatizinghis son. All in the name of communistic power hungry totalitarianism. Disgusting. It is dumb fucks like this that cause distrust from the public. A LOT of that "training" budget goes to send admin to week-long conferences and classes in vacation-destination cities. On that 'crossfire' movie/documentary thing someone linked a day or two ago, they had cops saying that they are getting all sorts of training, they are classified as 'experts' in all sorts of tools and techniques. They were saying that the call for more training was useless they are getting way too much training as it is. That seems to indicate that no, a lot of the training budget is NOT going to admins being sent to vacation-training. What it does speak of is cops that go to training and either get auto-passed or to just enough to get certified as an 'expert' and then forget all that training as soon as they walk out of the classroom. To be fair, that kind of response to training isn't just limited to police. Lots of places spend a ton of effort on certifications that are meaningless and training that goes in one ear and is retained only long enough to pass a test at the end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 6:48:00 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Release him but explain it's best to give your ID when asked, even though it's not required". Yeah, it's best to comply or they will beat your ass up and TAKE your ID from you. They are saying 'as police it's not our responsibility to know our own jobs so YOU better plan on doing extra if you don't want go get unlawfully arrested!' |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 6:59:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Most jobs, actually knowing how to do the job is a requirement for keeping it.
But apparently, in law enforcement, you can arrest people for stuff that isn't illegal and its ok because you can't be expected to know what the law is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 7:02:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It wouldnt. It went from looking for a guy they really didnt have a great description on to "show us your ID so we can verify who you are or we'll arrest you and take your kid". Scum. Probably ok for them to briefly detain to see if they had a witness that could ID him but they chose to play the "respect my authority" game instead over a fucking ID and manhandle an innocent guy that knows his rights. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How would showing the cop his ID prove or disprove whether or not he did whatever unknown action some unknown person accused him of doing? It wouldnt. It went from looking for a guy they really didnt have a great description on to "show us your ID so we can verify who you are or we'll arrest you and take your kid". Scum. Probably ok for them to briefly detain to see if they had a witness that could ID him but they chose to play the "respect my authority" game instead over a fucking ID and manhandle an innocent guy that knows his rights. I agree that with a weak description it would have been reasonable for them to approach him observe and then engage him in conversation but not detain him. It seems that if he was drunk they'd be able to cite him slurring words, his breath smelling of alcohol, etc. I mean, police ARE trained to look for the signs of being intoxicated, right? Meeting an extremely vague physical description isn't much. Having a kid as per the description helps more. Showing signs of intoxication, then you probably have RAS for a detention. But not without that. Funny thing is, had those cops had an IQ beyond 90, they might have been smart enough to lie and say they thought he was drunk and then claim it was because his voice sounded slurred or they though they caught the whiff of alcohol coming from him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 7:04:59 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know its a rhetorical question, but run his criminal history and check for warrants. Its all they know. It's step one. Everyone knows you can't skip step one. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cops get a call for a drunk driver, with description of "brown haired guy with 3 year old," and attempt to ID a dude with the 3 year old. Dude knows his rights and refuses. Cops threaten to take his kid and arrest him, and then arrest him and take his kid. what good was asking for his ID gonna do? It's not like they had the name of the drunk driver and could match it to this guy. Having this guy's name/address isn't gonna help them figure out if he did it. I know its a rhetorical question, but run his criminal history and check for warrants. Its all they know. It's step one. Everyone knows you can't skip step one. It's really sad that when faced with an actual crime that's all they know to do - run for criminal history and check for warrants. It's true that criminals tend to repeat, but it means they are pushing the vast majority of the investigative responsibility onto some past cop at some past crime scene. Viewing a person as a likely suspect for THIS car theft has zero to do with him having a screwdriver in his pocket and broken glass bits on his shoes and everything to do with if he's been arrested for car theft in the past. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 7:09:33 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And how are you going to know the difference? Who gets to say what's tyrannical and unconstitutional? Sounds like a great plan. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is no correlation between the two and you are really reaching with that one. Like I said: try again. No, I would never intervene on a cop's behalf. They're not on the side of law and order. They've proven it time and time again. So if their gang gets jumped by another gang it's not my place to get involved, why the fuck would you?  They've lost my support. I used to respect them and the tough job that they had to do, but now the profession as a whole seems to have lost its moral compass. If I drove on a highway and saw an officer struggling with someone I'd most likely stop and help that officer. Now, if I saw an officer being attacked after trying to enforce some tyrannical unconstitutional act then that's a whole different ball game. And how are you going to know the difference? Who gets to say what's tyrannical and unconstitutional? Sounds like a great plan. So, like the officer at the Boyle Heights Beating, he's going to stand back and do nothing figuring that if someone is in the wrong the courts can step in and retroactively 'fix' the wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 7:33:46 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Most jobs, actually knowing how to do the job is a requirement for keeping it. But apparently, in law enforcement, you can arrest people for stuff that isn't illegal and its ok because you can't be expected to know what the law is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 7:35:15 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @runcible The story wasn't very clear but this is how I read it Description was 'supposed to match my son' Key there was 'supposed to' which either means the description didn't match his son at all - or it did because it was really generic "20-25 year old white male medium height medium build brown hair wearing jeans and t-shirt. Also- the tags. If officer had been told tag number by the witness and ran tag number they would have ended up at wife's house. So that was clearly a lie. Most likely cops simply wrote the tag down seeing the car in the driveway and then lied about the tag number being part of the witness statement. @akodo |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 8:00:02 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does the wife not live with the husband and the son? @akodo Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: @runcible The story wasn't very clear but this is how I read it Description was 'supposed to match my son' Key there was 'supposed to' which either means the description didn't match his son at all - or it did because it was really generic "20-25 year old white male medium height medium build brown hair wearing jeans and t-shirt. Also- the tags. If officer had been told tag number by the witness and ran tag number they would have ended up at wife's house. So that was clearly a lie. Most likely cops simply wrote the tag down seeing the car in the driveway and then lied about the tag number being part of the witness statement. @akodo I understood it to mean that the cop said he ran the tag and it came back with poster's name - which is impossible, since the car wasn't registered in his name. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 8:05:14 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What, that doesn't make sense to you? It makes perfect sense that they would act as they do given the almost total lack of negative feedback. In the rest of the world, exceeding one's authority through ignorance and injuring someone or infringing upon their rights in the process would result in negative personal consequences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 8:08:26 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It makes perfect sense that they would act as they do given the almost total lack of negative feedback. In the rest of the world, exceeding one's authority through ignorance and injuring someone or infringing upon their rights in the process would result in negative personal consequences. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What, that doesn't make sense to you? It makes perfect sense that they would act as they do given the almost total lack of negative feedback. In the rest of the world, exceeding one's authority through ignorance and injuring someone or infringing upon their rights in the process would result in negative personal consequences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 8:09:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An easy "fix" would be to take any judgements against an LEO out of their retirement fund because now the taxpayer get to pay for their whoopsies. Let the thread slide continue. Yup. Switch it so from now on rather than a guaranteed pension there's a fund. Cops both active and retired can vote on which company manages it from year to year. But basically your money goes into the fund which is then invested in the stock market. The fund of course grows....6% 8% 12% who knows with the stock market - but long term it grows. Every year the 'growth' is sold off in such a way that the fund is 2% greater than last year (or some similar amount). The growth beyond that is what is split up and used to pay out to retirees. If it's been a good year you might pay out full 100% amount and then fold the excess back into the fund, or set in a special slush fund to cover the less good years. On those less good years, maybe it's only enough to pay 80%. And then, as stated, any lawsuits settled or lost because of police action comes out of that fund. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 8:18:14 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is what $20/hr policing looks like. Bottom of the barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 8:22:22 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You took what I wrote and applied it to the scenario at hand, which is understandable. My cops would not do this. But, we do have a ton of entitled folks where I work that thin asking for the manager will get them out of a ticket or arrest. That is not the case. If you're an asshat, I will discipline and ultimately fire you, if I can do it in the time that you're assigned to me. I do regular laws of arrest, case law and Terry Stop briefing training. I assign officers research papers or briefing training presentations if they can't answer my questions satisfactorily. My officers are trained to be able to spit out the RAS when stopping folks. We have all kinds of, "Am I being detained?" tards in my area. They are usually upset when they are told that they are, in fact, detained. I discourage consensual contacts and if I see one of my officers get a case of the ass because someone tells them to fuck off during a consensual contact, we have long, intense discussions about their choice of career. Shitbirds avoid me like the plague. So, if I pull up and ask, "Why am I here?" My officer better tell me the reasons for the detention and what's going on. Usually, it's just a Karen with attitude who doesn't understand the law. I'm not in the customer service business. I also work in one of the two most police-unfriendly federal court districts in the 9th Circuit. My folks need to be experts at applying the law while respecting civil rights. I set a high standard and demand excellence. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: @vojta There is a whole lotta explanation required here. You would back up your people even when they do something as pants on head retarded as going hands on with someone not providing ID? I was always astonished by the compound stupidity of some of the other officers I worked with. Particularly so when their only description was, "Brown hair with child" and nothing else? You have bad case law with your name written all over it if that's the case. I never want *ANY* case law with my name on it anywhere. Maybe you city guys should follow suit there. You took what I wrote and applied it to the scenario at hand, which is understandable. My cops would not do this. But, we do have a ton of entitled folks where I work that thin asking for the manager will get them out of a ticket or arrest. That is not the case. If you're an asshat, I will discipline and ultimately fire you, if I can do it in the time that you're assigned to me. I do regular laws of arrest, case law and Terry Stop briefing training. I assign officers research papers or briefing training presentations if they can't answer my questions satisfactorily. My officers are trained to be able to spit out the RAS when stopping folks. We have all kinds of, "Am I being detained?" tards in my area. They are usually upset when they are told that they are, in fact, detained. I discourage consensual contacts and if I see one of my officers get a case of the ass because someone tells them to fuck off during a consensual contact, we have long, intense discussions about their choice of career. Shitbirds avoid me like the plague. So, if I pull up and ask, "Why am I here?" My officer better tell me the reasons for the detention and what's going on. Usually, it's just a Karen with attitude who doesn't understand the law. I'm not in the customer service business. I also work in one of the two most police-unfriendly federal court districts in the 9th Circuit. My folks need to be experts at applying the law while respecting civil rights. I set a high standard and demand excellence. You can never be sure your underlings wouldn't make a mistake like that. But for sake of argument, let's say you were identified and recruited by that department because they knew they had problems and thought that you could probably help turn things around. They made a NICE offer, and you accepted. We can add in any details you want. A month in the guys you are in charge of are turning around - but the guys in sector 2 - they aren't. Sector 2 Sgt called in sick and you got stuck filling in...and THEN you got this call. How do you handle the situation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 8:33:31 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This problem started with Karens and escalated to cops. (Badged Karens) Fuck off to all of them. That certainly doesn't help...but it doesn't let cops off the hook. In the past, Ghetto trash have called the police because McDonalds ran out of McNuggets. Police then were able to tell the person to F. off that's not our problem. Police have the responsibility to tell Ghetto Trash, Karen, or the Mayor "that's not a crime, that's perfectly legal, we aren't going to do anything about it" Now, police have to take the time and ask a few questions because when callers are stressed tehy might not communicate very clearly. But yea, once you determine the thing the caller doesn't like is the Trump Mask, or that there's a black man on their sidewalk, or the McNugget situation, the police say 'that sucks but we can't do anything about it - talk to your city council and have em make it a law' |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 8:42:47 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does the wife not live with the husband and the son? @akodo Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: @runcible The story wasn't very clear but this is how I read it Description was 'supposed to match my son' Key there was 'supposed to' which either means the description didn't match his son at all - or it did because it was really generic "20-25 year old white male medium height medium build brown hair wearing jeans and t-shirt. Also- the tags. If officer had been told tag number by the witness and ran tag number they would have ended up at wife's house. So that was clearly a lie. Most likely cops simply wrote the tag down seeing the car in the driveway and then lied about the tag number being part of the witness statement. Does the wife not live with the husband and the son? @akodo Although possibly she did, and there was some other similar statement/detail brought up in the discussion "Neighbor said he thought he recognized the kid as a neighbor, last name Smith but didn't know first name. We run the tag and it pops up as Bob Smith so we know we got reliable info!" Of course if the car is actually registered in Mary Smith's name - that just showed the cops lied. I too wish the storyteller had been more precise, but yes some statement they made was revealed to be false because it hinged on them assuming the car was registered to a male at that address. The fact that it was registered to a (possible) different address and/or a female tripped up their story. @runcible |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 6:47:27 AM EDT
[#27]
I can't hear what they're saying with all that muffled mask bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 7:09:02 AM EDT
[#28]
Ohio I must identify.
Full name and DOB verbally is sufficient. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 9:16:08 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Funny thing is, had those cops had an IQ beyond 90, they might have been smart enough (and dishonest enough) to lie and say they thought he was drunk and then claim it was because his voice sounded slurred or they though they caught the whiff of alcohol coming from him. I think we can put boots on the ground LE in three groups. And since they're human, all three fuck up sometimes. It's what they do when they realize they fucked up that sets them apart from each other. So, I fucked up, and a law abiding citizen was harmed by me. 1. Unfuck it as quick as I can, and accept that I might get some departmental blowback for fucking up. 2. Think of a way to unfuck myself by coming up with a better reason for what I just did than the real reason I did it. Because I don't want to look bad just because I did something bad. Now we're having a brainstorming session to determine why we arrested the guy wearing the handcuffs. Did he resist? Naw, he could only resist a lawful arrest, and we didn't have a lawful arrest in the first place. Well cut the asshole loose, but let him know it's all his fault we arrested him for being innocent, because we don't want to lose face. 3. Unfuck myself by engaging in further crimes, framing an Innocent Man for something he didn't do. Because prosecuting the innocent for my error is better than losing face for my error. 2.5. I'm a #2, but if a cop goes #3 right in front of me, I'll back his play, because TBL. IME, most cops are 2.5s. I think that's the case here. If the supervisor went #3, the others would have followed. I don't see a single Luis Valdes in that group. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 9:33:16 AM EDT
[#30]
Typical cop bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 9:34:08 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dont these idiots know theyre under the national spotlight? Why continue to be idiot cops? Idiots don't know they're idiots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 9:39:40 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: and yet even in the areas where police get paid really solid salaries you see similar performances Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This is what $20/hr policing looks like. Bottom of the barrel. This. Intelligent, patient people rarely seem to want to become cops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 9:46:42 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ohio I must identify. Full name and DOB verbally is sufficient. According to this, that is only the case if the officer has reason to believe you have, are, or about to commit a crime (Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion or RAS). https://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29v1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 9:50:24 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: According to this, that is only the case if the officer has reason to believe you have, are, or about to commit a crime (Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion or RAS). https://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29v1 But do you have the right to demand he articulate it to you before you ID yourself, or does he merely have to come up with it after he arrests you for not IDing yourself? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 9:52:49 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Finally, the question must be asked is it a pretty well understood (or should be pretty well understood) part of the law or something really obscure. In this case, the basics needed to detain a person should be really well understood by an officer. As should when ID can get demanded. It would be a much different situation if an officer gets called to Walmart because some guy has a tiger in his RV, and the cop arrests the guy for having a dangerous animal in public, only to later find out that actually isn't a crime hence an illegal arrest. There are some really obscure laws on the books but you'd think that the boundaries of your authority as you initiate contact with a member of the public should be well understood. I don't believe for a moment that they were unaware that he did not have to show ID - I think they were putting him in the car while trying to figure out what they could charge him with and we know that was Sarge's approach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 9:57:11 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But do you have the right to demand he articulate it to you before you ID yourself, or does he merely have to come up with it after he arrests you for not IDing yourself? I mean if they want to arrest you, they're going to arrest you. Lawfulness of arrest to be determined. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 9:57:34 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As a side note, if I’m stopped for a traffic violation in Texas I don’t have to identify myself, or at that point I’m arrested for having a tail light out? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 9:59:05 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's funny, because there's all sorts of video evidence where a cop is doing the jumping on an innocent person, like this one in Boyle Heights and the other cops just sit there and let it happen...even though it's their JOBS to enforce the law. here's another one. Again, so if cops whose JOB it is to enforce the law and there stop an assault can just stand there and let it happen or this one where the jail guard starts beating a guy and the cops follow laughing - even though as law enforcement it's their JOB to stop it. And yet there's an expectation that if a cop was loosing a fight then Joe Average citizen is supposed to jump in, even though it's clear that cops wouldn't help Joe Average if it was a COP who was beating him illegally. If we had 1/10 of these vids of cops being out of line where one of the other cops present stops the guy and says "wtf are you doing?" it would improve perception immensely. Those occurrences are vanishingly rare however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 9:59:19 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, like the officer at the Boyle Heights Beating, he's going to stand back and do nothing figuring that if someone is in the wrong the courts can step in and retroactively 'fix' the wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is no correlation between the two and you are really reaching with that one. Like I said: try again. No, I would never intervene on a cop's behalf. They're not on the side of law and order. They've proven it time and time again. So if their gang gets jumped by another gang it's not my place to get involved, why the fuck would you? They've lost my support. I used to respect them and the tough job that they had to do, but now the profession as a whole seems to have lost its moral compass. If I drove on a highway and saw an officer struggling with someone I'd most likely stop and help that officer. Now, if I saw an officer being attacked after trying to enforce some tyrannical unconstitutional act then that's a whole different ball game. And how are you going to know the difference? Who gets to say what's tyrannical and unconstitutional? Sounds like a great plan. So, like the officer at the Boyle Heights Beating, he's going to stand back and do nothing figuring that if someone is in the wrong the courts can step in and retroactively 'fix' the wrong. Here's the problem with your analogy. An active duty police officer has a constitutional obligation to step in and stop an ongoing civil rights violation, excessive force in particular. And he also has qualified immunity from civil damages from doing so. GD white knight driving by.... not so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 10:03:24 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But do you have the right to demand he articulate it to you before you ID yourself, or does he merely have to come up with it after he arrests you for not IDing yourself? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: According to this, that is only the case if the officer has reason to believe you have, are, or about to commit a crime (Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion or RAS). https://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29v1 But do you have the right to demand he articulate it to you before you ID yourself, or does he merely have to come up with it after he arrests you for not IDing yourself? If you're being forced to provide information, which implies an arrest for noncompliance, then it's an investigative detention, which requires RS as a matter of federal constitutional law. Even if Ohio wanted to dispense with that protection, it could get fucked, because that would be unconstitutional. There are actually some good RS protection cases, particularly for gun owners/possessors, out of Ohio. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 10:05:21 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you're being forced to provide information, which implies an arrest for noncompliance, then it's an investigative detention, which requires RS as a matter of federal constitutional law. Even if Ohio wanted to dispense with that protection, it could get fucked, because that would be unconstitutional. There are actually some good RS protection cases, particularly for gun owners/possessors, out of Ohio. But, when RS is required, do you normally have the right to 1. Demand they tell you what their RS is, and 2. Behave as if they do not have RS if they refuse to tell you what their RS is? From my point of view, as a law abiding citizen, is it's unlikely that there is any RS about me since I didn't do anything that would give rise to RS. (but there are many ways RS could be generated without my involvement, like meeting a specific description of a crime suspect) But if I act on that belief, refusing to submit to authority, does his refusal to tell me what the RS is make it reasonable/not criminal for me to not comply with his RS based orders? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 10:09:54 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But, when RS is required, do you normally have the right to 1. Demand they tell you what their RS is, and 2. Behave as if they do not have RS if they refuse to tell you what their RS is? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If you're being forced to provide information, which implies an arrest for noncompliance, then it's an investigative detention, which requires RS as a matter of federal constitutional law. Even if Ohio wanted to dispense with that protection, it could get fucked, because that would be unconstitutional. There are actually some good RS protection cases, particularly for gun owners/possessors, out of Ohio. But, when RS is required, do you normally have the right to 1. Demand they tell you what their RS is, and 2. Behave as if they do not have RS if they refuse to tell you what their RS is? You have the right to demand RS, of course. Do they have any federal constitutional obligation to inform you of what the RS is first? No. But if there's a camera recording, it's capturing the question and response, or lack of response. Just like arrestees, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 10:17:20 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have the right to demand RS, of course. Do they have any federal constitutional obligation to inform you of what the RS is first? No. But if there's a camera recording, it's capturing the question and response, or lack of response. Just like arrestees, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, right? So it depends on whether you get a 'you should have just obeyed the cop' court, or a 'the cop should have just told you the source of his authority when you asked for it' court? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 10:51:50 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So it depends on whether you get a 'you should have just obeyed the cop' court, or a 'the cop should have just told you the source of his authority when you asked for it' court? No. It depends on whether RS existed, which is an objective standard. Even if the cop is detaining the person because of a mistake of law, which was the case here, RS could still theoretically exist for other reasons that the dumb cop didn't know. When people challenge cops and assert their rights, it doesn't invoke some magical requirement for them to answer your questions. They're just questions. They could fluster the cop and make for a good youtube video, or they could ignore the questions. Or they could answer them. RS either exists, or it doesn't. Courts look objectively at the "totality of the circumstances." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 2:06:33 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Idiots don't know they're idiots. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Dont these idiots know theyre under the national spotlight? Why continue to be idiot cops? Idiots don't know they're idiots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 4:49:01 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. It depends on whether RS existed, which is an objective standard. Even if the cop is detaining the person because of a mistake of law, which was the case here, RS could still theoretically exist for other reasons that the dumb cop didn't know. When people challenge cops and assert their rights, it doesn't invoke some magical requirement for them to answer your questions. They're just questions. They could fluster the cop and make for a good youtube video, or they could ignore the questions. Or they could answer them. RS either exists, or it doesn't. Courts look objectively at the "totality of the circumstances." So: If I identify myself to a cop who doesn't have RS to ask me for ID, I just threw away my rights and started a fishing trip through whatever records are searchable on his computer. If I fail to identify myself to a cop who does have RS, I commit a crime in many states. If I fail to identify myself to a cop who does not have RS, I protect my rights. But, there is no way of knowing at the time of my compliance or refusal whether the cop has RS, so I can't know if I'm protecting my rights or committing an offense until later. But if I were the guy in the video, I'd feel pretty secure in refusing to comply under the circumstances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 7:14:20 PM EDT
[#47]
So, how long has the relevant part of TX law been on the books? I.E., that you need not identify yourself unless under arrest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 7:23:59 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What, that doesn't make sense to you? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Most jobs, actually knowing how to do the job is a requirement for keeping it. But apparently, in law enforcement, you can arrest people for stuff that isn't illegal and its ok because you can't be expected to know what the law is. It makes sense to SCOTUS. As they ruled that cops dont have to know the law. Its just a My Bad Whoopie Heien v. North Carolina and then in U.S. v Shelton Barnes . cops can just lie on warrants too. Who cares ! lol FU also in other professions there usually is an incentive to not defend your incompetent co-worker. but in LE it seems to be a job requirement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 7:48:06 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, how long has the relevant part of TX law been on the books? I.E., that you need not identify yourself unless under arrest. Decades |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 8:11:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Decades That being it, there is no excuse for not knowing the law. Unless you're a cop, I guess. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
