You driod fellows will like this one

[waday]

What gives the police officer the right if he/she has no reason to ask for it in the first place?

What happened to being innocent until proven guilty?

If he/she has REASONABLE suspicion, understood, but if he/she doesn't know the laws and requests ID based on incorrect knowledge, sorry.

 

[snerd]

Although heading in that direction, this is not yet mother Russia. We are not required to "show our papers" at the whim of any official of the State, without probable cause. Rights not exercised are rights lost.

 

[SCraig]

I'm not going to bother going back and watching that video again, but as I recall the police officer never accused the guy of anything. He saw something he felt was suspicious, he stopped and asked what the guy was doing, and asked for an ID. Both of which he is SUPPOSED to do, and both of which the driod clown refused to cooperate with.

Perhaps it's my age, perhaps it's my southern upbringing, but I was always taught to cooperate with a police officer trying to do his job. I've been stopped for many traffic violations over the decades, with very few tickets. I carry a gun frequently and have been asked for my carry permit from time to time. I've found that the simplest way to avoid conflicts such as those in the video is to simply be polite and cooperative. Saying, "Yes sir you may see my ID" tends to work a lot better than being a prick in situations like that.

As was mentioned by someone else, this police officer had no idea WHY the guy was taking video of the building. For all he knew the guy was looking for loopholes in the security system. All the police officer apparently did was ask WHY the guy was taking a video of the building, which is what he's supposed to do when he sees something suspicious. All the droid guy had to do was explain and the issue would have been avoided.

I have respect for police officers because I wouldn't want to do their job. I have no interest in walking up to a car in the middle of the night, not knowing what kind of person is driving it. There is a very strong likelihood that I'll go home from my job every single day in the same condition I started that morning. They can't say that. Their job is to do the things that most of us don't want to do, that someone has to do. And in return they receive the disdain of those who weren't even involved. Their every move is dissected and scrutinized by people on the internet a thousand miles from where it occurred. In my opinion if you weren't there at that exact moment then you have no right to second-guess the guy who was.

Has anyone ever noticed that a police officer approaching a car from the rear will occasionally touch the left rear fender? My dad was a Tennessee Highway Patrol colonel and he told me there was a reason for that. If the officer happens to get shot by the occupant it might be possible to identify the vehicle from his fingerprints. We send people into situations where they have to do things like this and then ***** about trivial things like them asking a guy for their ID. Sure there will always be some jack-booted thugs that just want to carry a gun and play Rambo, the the vast majority of police officers are just guys doing their job the best way they know how. Some of you might want to cut them some slack from time to time.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I looked up the name of the Copblock logo on the videos, it does not seem to actually be an organization - no board, no officers, no address or nonprofit status that I could tell. But they're apparently getting money from ads thru their videos and website, are selling merchandise, and accepting 'donations' (which if they aren't a nonprofit, must be going directly into their pockets). I think it's a bunch of people that by recording and/or promoting these videos seem to have figured out a way get people to give them money.

There was at least one actual incident with this guy covered by local news, where he flipped the bird at an officer, got pulled over and then pepper sprayed (which I don't think should have happened even if the guy was being uncooperative); the officer is no longer working there and the police dept. settled with him (undisclosed amount).

He seems to have an awful lot of time to spend driving around from town to town, wonder if he's actually work for a living or if he's getting enough money just doing this.

 

[Braineack]

there's a "copblock" in almost every major city. it's just a bunch of people with nothing better to do -- that's about it.

Most of them just perform 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment "audits" and film what happens.


this is pretty much all "they" do:

 

[waday]

Saying, "Yes sir you may see my ID" tends to work a lot better than being a prick in situations like that.

See below quote:

We are not required to "show our papers" at the whim of any official of the State, without probable cause. Rights not exercised are rights lost.

There was at least one actual incident with this guy covered by local news, where he flipped the bird at an officer, got pulled over and then pepper sprayed (which I don't think should have happened even if the guy was being uncooperative); the officer is no longer working there and the police dept. settled with him (undisclosed amount).

Good to know that his rights were upheld, and the officer was held accountable for his actions. The guy does seem like a jerk, but he's allowed that right in America. But, just because we have the right to free speech, doesn't mean should always exercise it (e.g., sometimes silence is golden, haha). Yes, I can say what I want, but others have the right to rebut me, completely ignore me, or make me sound like an idiot, if they want, because it's a two way street. We forget that all of our 'free' actions/words do have consequences, whether we see it immediately or not.

And in return they receive the disdain of those who weren't even involved. Their every move is dissected and scrutinized by people on the internet a thousand miles from where it occurred. In my opinion if you weren't there at that exact moment then you have no right to second-guess the guy who was. ... Some of you might want to cut them some slack from time to time.

I dislike the 'with us or against us' mentality that is all too familiar when these discussions pop up. Emotions flare, because we're all quite emotionally/politically invested. By stating that you support police officers, it makes it sound like those that disagree with you don't. That's not fair, especially because many of us do have family/relatives/friends that are officers or in a related field.

I don't think anyone here is generalizing ALL officers--just those that obviously don't know the laws they're supposed to uphold.

 

[vintagesnaps]

The guy may have a right to do what he's doing but that doesn't make it a good idea. Should we all spend our days driving around flipping the bird at cops? of course not. And the hard working officers who are doing their jobs properly have better things to do than babysit this guy as he spends his days driving around from town to town. Look at his youtube channel and the website, I think it's all about getting attention and followers and money. That's what seems to drive this.

If someone really has a problem with an officer then the person could go in to the city/community offices and file a complaint. And follow up if needed. If officials don't get complaints filed then how do they know there's a problem with a particular officer? It's often a series of complaints that shows a pattern of behavior that can lead to something being done about a cop/employee not doing his/her job properly.

I think that website is a scam. The people doing that seem to be getting money but don't seem to be a legit organization. So guys like this seem to have figured out a way to dupe people into putting money into their pockets.

 

[JacaRanda]

The guy may have a right to do what he's doing but that doesn't make it a good idea. Should we all spend our days driving around flipping the bird at cops? of course not. And the hard working officers who are doing their jobs properly have better things to do than babysit this guy as he spends his days driving around from town to town. Look at his youtube channel and the website, I think it's all about getting attention and followers and money. That's what seems to drive this.

If someone really has a problem with an officer then the person could go in to the city/community offices and file a complaint. And follow up if needed. If officials don't get complaints filed then how do they know there's a problem with a particular officer? It's often a series of complaints that shows a pattern of behavior that can lead to something being done about a cop/employee not doing his/her job properly.

I think that website is a scam. The people doing that seem to be getting money but don't seem to be a legit organization. So guys like this seem to have figured out a way to dupe people into putting money into their pockets.

That dude is clearly asking for trouble and trying to prove a point. Ticks me off in somewhat a bass ackward way that he can even have the gall to do something like that. In short, there are people that in too many cases would have been shot even by pulling that kind of crap.

Unfortunately, many people do not have confidence that if they filed complaints, anything would result from it. As much as I believe that the overwhelming majority of officers are normal every day people doing a good job serving and protecting; I also believe that in some places an entire precinct or department can be corrupt. It happens.

 

[Braineack]

Unfortunately, many people do not have confidence that if they filed complaints, anything would result from it.

no, the real problem is most people settle out of court so it's the taxpayer has to pay BIG for an officer's inability to follow the law.

They are typically protected with immunity from anything legal if it's during the performance of their duty. Then they have the full protection from their local union, their DA, local judges, local leadership, community, etc.

if they do get fired, they are paid the two-three years they are suspended and have a nice vacation during the process. Then they simply get another job with another department.

But typically they are punished for breaking the law with a good 'ol chuckle.

here's an example: GSP trooper fired after wreck that killed 2 teens

here an officer was speeding just shy of double the speed limit where he killed two teenaged girls.

he was already "disciplined" twice before for crashing on the job while speeding and/or driving recklessly. The first time he received a verbal warning, the second time an angry letter.

No criminal charges has been filed against him yet. If I had done it, I'd be in jail with a $500,000 bond.

If the DA does decide to prosecute his/her buddy, they will dog and pony show the grand jury trial. they will fail to bring up and previous driving history, and they will argue for him NOT be have charges brought against him, and they won't call any witnesses against the officer. The grand jury will fail to indict him.

seriously, if you want to break the law, first become ABOVE the law. This the only job where if you're found to break the law, you may get a slap on the wrist after you investigate yourself of wrongdoing and clear your own name, while your city pays off millions to settle your suit.

there is absolutely zero incentive for a police officer to follow the law -- the have every incentive to break the law to enforce the law.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Well yeah, that could happen, especially if it's someone at the top. Eventually it's going to come out, word will get around, people will talk, someone somewhere (county/city official outside the dept. etc.) will start checking into it.

But I know from having worked for a public agency that they can't just fire someone for, I don't know, being an overbearing obnoxious nitwit! There has to be just cause, they have to have documentation. At least some of it will probably be public record so they'd have to keep track of their process in firing someone, particularly if the person contests it.

Nothing may be resolved all that fast, it would most likely take time because they probably aren't going to fire someone for just one complaint. It's most likely going to take a number of small incidents and complaints being documented unless something major happened before someone's going to get canned. So one incident getting reported may not get immediate results but a 'paper trail' of complaints and problems will more likely provide enough cause to do something about it. There just isn't necessarily a quick easy answer or solution.

 

[JacaRanda]

Well yeah, that could happen, especially if it's someone at the top. Eventually it's going to come out, word will get around, people will talk, someone somewhere (county/city official outside the dept. etc.) will start checking into it.

But I know from having worked for a public agency that they can't just fire someone for, I don't know, being an overbearing obnoxious nitwit! There has to be just cause, they have to have documentation. At least some of it will probably be public record so they'd have to keep track of their process in firing someone, particularly if the person contests it.

Nothing may be resolved all that fast, it would most likely take time because they probably aren't going to fire someone for just one complaint. It's most likely going to take a number of small incidents and complaints being documented unless something major happened before someone's going to get canned. So one incident getting reported may not get immediate results but a 'paper trail' of complaints and problems will more likely provide enough cause to do something about it. There just isn't necessarily a quick easy answer or solution.

If only it were that simple and that true in every situation. I wish!

 

[vintagesnaps]

In the article posted where the officer got fired it says in the two prior crashes "the contributing factor was misjudged clearance, nothing to do with speed or reckless driving".

It sounds like the car turned in front of the cruiser, which was speeding with no lights or siren on. Some of what was posted seems speculative (what buddy?? do the officer and DA even know each other?) and no charges have been filed yet (this happened Friday - how far along do you expect them to be by Tuesday??) because it says the case needs to be reviewed before deciding whether or not to take it to a grand jury. They'll need to take time to do a proper and thorough investigation if they don't want it thrown out of court.

 

[Braineack]

Ah I misread that. Bad example...I have no problem finding others.

using tapatalk.