Cops...Out Of Control...
 

I don't usually start non-adult threads on GFY.

But damn.

I'm watching the news last night and they showed a quick report that there is a law being worked on in Illinois that says if you film a cop you will be arrested and face ten years in jail!

What a load of b.s.! So these bullies in uniforms (basically a legal gang with guns and full power over people) have been caught doing all kinds of crap (beating people etc.). And their answer is to make it illegal for you to whip out your cellphone and youtube their actions.

I know, I know...there are lots of "good" cops. Hell, my best coke dealer (and one of my best friends) back in South Carolina is a cop and has been for over 20 years. :)

But he, and one of my ex-partners (a cop), one of my brothers (sheriffs deputy), 3 of my cousins (cops), and my mom (sheriffs deputy) have all told me the stories of intimidating people just for fun and covering each other's asses when they do crazy shit.

I sadly predict that unless cops are reigned back in, there is going to be continued violent ends for many of them. People are scared of them. I think I'd rather get car jacked than to get pulled over late at night on a deserted road by the wrong cop.

They've been given way too much power over the last couple of decades. I still remember back in the late 1970's and 1980's when a cop could NOT search your car or even search you. Then the Supreme Court made a ruling allowing it to happen (against the bill of rights protection from unreasonable search and seizure), and in my opinion it's all been downhill since. All in the name of the "War On Drugs". And of course now at the airport: the "War On Terrorism"

Yeah we're free alright. Just don't get pulled over. And if you see someone getting the shit beat out of them by a cop...don't film it.

You better pray to God the troops don't come back from war to fill in "needed policing" jobs.

Without links to back up your story I don't believe any of that at all.

Did you hear it "Faux" News? :1orglaugh

Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland they say it is obstructing law enforcement. http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

There you go smartass. :)

We had a run in with local pd in OC at a show I was promoting. Cops were giving a couple skinheads shit, and a friend and I started recording. The cops quickly jumped on our cases and told us to put the cameras away, or they would see to it we were pulled in for tampering and obstruction... My friend handed one of the officers his bar reg. and ACLU card without saying a word, and we went about our business until they left a few minutes later, very quietly... but I can't imagine being in any other situation recording nowadays. Sad really...

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

here is your response robbie: http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/20...-shot-24-hours

You win.

I'll take your word for it now since no way in hell am I clicking on some
shit called Gizmodo.


:1orglaugh

Why doesnt every motor vehicle come with a camera facing all sides including interior and exterior? And when a mayor puts up cameras at every possible location to observe sidewalks and crosswalks, will those be exempt from subpeona if a citizen claims abuse?

this is only the beginning..

"A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison."

Thats stupid and sick and twisted. And clearly demonstrates whats more important. Covering their own ass. lol

this will be challenged to the supreme court at some point..

its an unconstitutional law no matter how you slice it..



Now, 99 pigs on a block with me,
Not a motherfuckin' cop wanna knock with me,
A c-o-n-v-i-c-t, the motherfuckin' d-o-g, comin' from the l-b-c.
Look at what the doc brought in,
A chrome 38, a fo'ty-fo' mag, and mack 10
So what you wanna do? (what you wanna do?)
I got the gauge, a uzi and the mothafuckin 22
So if you wanna blast, nigga we can buck 'em
If we stick 'em then we stuck 'em so fuck 'em!"

Yeah, and you don't stop,
Cause it's 1-8-7 on a motherfuckin cop
Yeah, and you don't stop,
Cause it's 1-8-7 on a motherfuckin cop






.

I didn't even know an eavesdropping charge could be filed if at least one party
engaged in the conversation knew it was being recorded.

Maybe in that state the law if both parties have to know.

Does this apply to everyone or just cops?

I can't see how I could make a case about someone video taping me talking out
loud in public. They'd have to plug their ears to not be eavesdropping. :1orglaugh

You do not belong on the Internet if you do not know what Gizmodo is.

Seriously... it's like being afraid to click on YouTube :)

I know this much :


I won't be clicking there homie.

Not even considering that they produce trustworthy news.

Someone in the comments of the Giz article makes a great point. Does this go both ways? Can the police now not use a video they have of a citizen committing a crime?

We all know the answer: of course not.

That is the irony in all of this bullshit.

But you work in this industry? That's funny. Nice thy pretending to be on your high horse.

I'm sure the law would have no problem if a citizen got footage of a perp shooting a cop...

hasn't some of those videos posted on youtube cleared police?

Anyone familiar with this case?

what about news crews? can't they record arrests any more either in those states now?

Just imagine what it's going to be like in 10 more years.

Different states have different laws. :2 cents:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1By9Fzp5m

Even a public servant serving in public... who's beating someone's ass just for fun or 'cause he didn't get his morning blowjob...

:D

Actually yeah. There was a video of a cop fighting with a couple of women in Seattle a while back. After the arrest they wanted to press charges/sue saying he was using excessive force against them.When the video came out not only was the cop shown to have done nothing wrong one of the girls actually apologized to him for acting like an idiot.

yea that is what i was thinking of.. i recall it defusing a tense situation for those cops

I think that is why a lot of cop cars now have dash cams. But, it can be a two edged sword. If the cop is doing his job and does nothing wrong the camera can show it, but if they get stupid, it can bit them in the ass.

Actually that came about in 1968 and had nothing to do with RR's "War on Drugs" or GWB's "War On Terrorism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person?s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

I like how the media now plays everyone's 911 calls for entertainment.

I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to them pulling you over on a traffic stop, making you get out of the car, frisking you, searching your car, going through a woman's purse, etc.

I know in the 1970s and most of the 1980's they couldn't do that. I know because I was pulled over many times and had coke in my pocket and my then wife had pot and coke in her purse. But they couldn't do anything.

Now? If they want to they can drag your ass out of the car frisk you and then pretty much destroy your car (I had them completely wreck a $1500 stereo system in the early 90's) and there's nothing you can do about it.

Matter of fact if you even TALK...like ask them "what is the problem officer?" They will tell you to SHUT UP. Completely rude and completely intimidating and bullying.

The idea that most cops are good and there are only few "bad apples" can easily be proven false. Look at when a cop breaks the law and it's clearly caught on camera, all the other cops come to his defense. If they were mostly good, wouldn't they want to purge the "bad apples" when they are caught?

Here in Chicago, an off duty cop beat a female bartender on camera for almost two straight minutes. He was obviously guilty, yet all the other cops gave him special treatment, used police vehicles and their own authority to block the press and even gave him special rides to and from court so he could avoid the media. Why would they go to such lengths to protect this obvious "bad apple"? It's because most cops are actually bad with a few good apples here and there. They have adopted this "us against them" mentality and believe that everyone who is a non cop is out to get them. They dress and act more like a pseudo military organization instead of police officers meant to support the citizens who pay their salary.

BTW, I can post 10 stories in Chicago from the last year exactly like the cop who beat that woman and other cops protected him. Everything from beatings to killings. They are in the paper and you can google them. It basically proves the whole few bad apple theory as completely false, at least in Chicago.

Bullshit :2 cents:

Good point man

Quoted for truth.

What about the cops in Philly that were shaking down immigrant bodega owners - they'd roll on them, arrest the entire family and staff, then while they were in lockup trying to make bail they'd tear the stores apart and steal every cent they found.

For you douches who demand a link because you never fucking watch news other than TMZ:

http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/01/ph...ids-update-rog

The quality of the police force would increase exponentially if:

(1) they required a 4 year college education (not some bullshit 2 year "law enforcement" degree from some online university)
(2) they required stringent height/weight requirements for the duration of their service;
(3) you can only serve in the city you live in (some jurisdictions may have this); and
(4) they paid a lot better

I used to call police force taxes "white welfare" contributions lol. Generally speaking, dudes that can't get jobs anywhere else become cops.

And don't ever divorce a cop. Friend of mine is trying to divorce one, and he is fucking crazy. I referred her to a divorce lawyer, and the lawyer said, "cops are by far the worst to deal with in divorces."

With all that said, there are a ton of good cops, though I'd say 95% of my interactions with the police have been negative (and I'm a law abiding citizen).

I would disagree with you and can give you an example that is just the opposite.

In the town I live in (it is small) they had a cop of falsified a report and he got caught. He was fired. He sued the city saying that he was wrongly terminated and the union came to his defense. After 18 months his case made it arbitration. the arbitrator found that while he was wrong in falsifying the report firing him was too harsh of a penalty. They forced the city to hire him back and pay him his lost pay for those 18 months. When he came back none of the cops in the department would work with him. They refused to work with him. The district attorney refused to take any case that had his name on it. This left him as being useless. The entire department told the chief that he would have to fire them all if he was going to force them to work with this guy.

The guy stayed on and worked for another year answering phones and taking walk ins, but then the city was able to get his law enforcement certificate revoked so they were able to legally fire him.

In the case you point out, how many cops took part in helping defend this guy? Was it 10, 20, 50, 100? In Chicago which has around 15,000 cops. So less than 1% take part in helping to defend this guy and that makes all 15,000 of them bad? The reason most don't step forward publicly is because if they do some of their fellow officers might see them as unreliable and as someone you have to watch your back with when you are around them or working with them. Maybe some see their silence as an endorsement of the behavior, but that doesn't mean it is.

Enough with the logic. Don't you know where you are?

:1orglaugh

This would do nothing to increase the quality of the police force. How many people have you worked with over the years that have had degrees and were clueless. I know a lot of cops both with and without degrees and there is no evidence that having this degree makes them a better cop. For that matter I would say of the cops I know some of those that I would say are the least capable are the ones with degrees. I'm not saying the degree caused it, but they are very book smart, not street smart. As a friend of mine put it, "Being a good cop all comes down to how well you deal with crazy bitches." Until they start teaching a Dealing with Crazy Bitches 101 in college, this is useless.

Some departments have this, other's don't, but I agree that it should be mandatory.

Many cops do live in the city they serve in, but this isn't something that is realistic for some people. Sure, living in an area might help you get to know it a little better, but it could also open you and your family up to other issues. The last thing I would want is some crazy fuck that I have arrested 10 times being able to easily find out where I live, what my kids look like and where they hang out/go to school.

and
Agreed, typically the higher the pay scale the more applicants you get and more selective you can be.

You might be surprised at how hard it is to get a job as a cop in some areas. Big cities are a lot easier because they always need people, but in the town I live in they had one opening recently and they had 135 people apply for it and that was without making it widely known that it was open. That was just telling the union that they were interviewing. If they would have advertised it they would have gotten two or three times that many applicants.

LOL I sometimes forget.

So then the show "Cops" would be no more, right?

That can be looked at a few ways. It's quite possible that there are many corrupt cops in Chicago as in other cities around the country.

However I guarantee you there are a million more scumbag murderers, rapists and utter dregs of humanity which they have to face for shit pay day in and day out.

I've had a fair amount of dealings with police from California, Washington, Louisiana and all over and 80% of the time they've been pretty decent.

Having been to Chicago a few times, as well as New York, Los Angeles etc, you could not pay me enough to be a cop in a big city.

I would totally agree with you. Those detectives are for the most part "real" cops.
The ones who seem to have the inferiority complex and beat the shit out of everybody are the traffic cops and patrol cops in cars. Especially traffic cops...those guys aren't much more than money collectors for the city and the car insurance companies. I'd be ashamed to be one of them.

Now the small group of detectives who actually do real police work? I've never come into contact with them. It's always been uniformed patrol clowns... and like most folks...9 times out of ten it's been a bad experience which left me and my family scared to death.

When I see on the news that a city is going to fire 30% of it's police force I say "GOOD". As long as it's a bunch of fucking useless traffic cop nazi's.

The news always paints it like the town will suddenly be in danger...but that will only be if they fired all the real cops. If they fired every goddamn one of the piece of shit motorcycle cops here in Vegas who do nothing but sit in quiet neighborhoods like mine and spend the whole day ticketing soccer moms for the insurance company....this town wouldn't be one bit less secure from crime.

Funny how some people think we should ban guns, why? so the police can protect us? LMAO

All have just started

You can have power over people as long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he's no longer in your power.

ALEKSANDR SOLZHENITSYN

This too will end, they only have this control for the one having something to lose. Grate thing about power is it always shifts. Ebb and flow...

Oh, well that convinced me. You heard a story so it must apply to all cops. :1orglaugh