# You driod fellows will like this one



## Braineack (Sep 27, 2015)




----------



## SCraig (Sep 27, 2015)

What a jerk!  And I don't mean the police officer.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 27, 2015)

Same chit different day.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Sep 27, 2015)

Is it the shape of his head that makes the hat look stupid or is it just a ridiculous hat


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 27, 2015)

Good video

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## terri (Sep 27, 2015)

I don't really see the point of this video, and do not applaud the deliberate antagonizing of an officer.   You wanna fly your drone, fly your drone, but in my view this thread does not belong in Articles of Interest, but rather here, as it is mainly aerial photography of the police station.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 27, 2015)

Idiot cop. Typical bully. NO KNOWLEDGE whatsoever of the laws, or court decisions affirming the laws of the United States. The cop is a total dick.

Like his supervisor said, "Not a problem. He can videotape as much as he wants."

Asshat cop. Like many of them are. The officer repeatedly and emphatically tried to overstep a citizen's rights. IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE--and that goes double for cops who walk around with a gun, and a badge, and an idiotic attitude. Ignorantly trying to enforce one's personal opinion on citizens, with ZERO knowledge--that's what the officer was trying to do. Defending that type of bad policing is highly dubious. This is just like stop-and-frisk.

Imagine a cop who has no legal basis enforcing whatever the hell he wants as "the law". That is exactly what the officer was doing. There is zero defense for that kind of bad-cop B.S.. None.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 27, 2015)

terri said:


> I don't really see the point of this video, and do not applaud the deliberate antagonizing of an officer.   You wanna fly your drone, fly your drone, but in my view this thread does not belong in Articles of Interest, but rather here, as it is mainly aerial photography of the police station.



I don't applaud deliberate antagonizing of citizens doing 100% legal activity without reasonable articulatable suspicion a crime is being committed, about to be committed, or has been committed.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 27, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Idiot cop. Typical bully. NO KNOWLEDGE whatsoever of the laws, or court decisions affirming the laws of the United States. The cop is a total dick.
> 
> Like his supervisor said, "Not a problem. He can videotape as much as he wants."
> 
> ...



If I was the guy taking the video, I would simply say, "OK, if I've broken a law, arrest me. The fact that I refuse to identify myself does not have any bearing on whether flying a drone is legal or not.  Cuff me and stuff me and let the county attorney deal with it.  If it gets that far, I want to see a judge.  Otherwise, I should be free to go."


----------



## Derrel (Sep 27, 2015)

The guy instead told the street-level officer to do what he should have done without being prompted: *to ASK a more-experienced, higher-ranking, and presumably SMARTER and BETTER-INFORMED superior officer* how to handle a situation that he was clearly incapable of handling on his own. Instead, the street-level officer continued to repeatedly pursue his unproductive, combative approach. He clearly needs more training and a major attitude adjustment because he was unable to handle a very simple interaction with a member of the public. This is typical of many young men in their 20's and early 30's...not enough seasoning to handle interacting with the public, an inability to demonstrate sound judgement, reasoning, and the inability to even admit that he DOESN'T KNOW SQUAT ABOUT what he is asserting he has a legal right to do.

The young, inexperienced trooper showed very poor skills in conflict resolution, and was a terrible representative of his department. There's a reason he is at the very bottom of the ranks. People have a right to expect all LEO's to KNOW the LAWS they are supposedly enforcing! Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse...how many times have we heard that old maxim applied to citizens? And yet, we have people defending flat-out BAD COPS. That's not logical.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Sep 28, 2015)

Recent Posts: Reviews, Critique, Opinions, needed | Page 2 | Photography Forum


----------



## Braineack (Sep 28, 2015)

Derrel said:


> He clearly needs more training and a major attitude adjustment because he was unable to handle a very simple interaction with a member of the public.



he doesn't need to know the law, that's what the state's lawyers are for to sort out all his object violations after the fact.

Heien v. North Carolina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> _*Heien v. North Carolina*_, 574 U.S. ___ (2014), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court, ruling that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to justify a traffic stop. The Court delivered its ruling on December 15, 2014.



Cops can literally claim ignorance of the law while enforcing the law.

But also in that same ruling:


> If it is appropriate to presume that citizens know the parameters of the criminal laws, it is surely appropriate to expect the same of law enforcement officers—at least with regard to unambiguous statutes. Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 540 (2014).



Basically in Heien, there was question on what constituted "working" brakes or not.  The officer had one idea, the driver another.  So there was a question on interpretation.

But a lot of people are using the same case, and the above statement as defense or invalid stops were officers just make up laws.  In this case, Heien was quoted by the defense because a person open-carrying, where it was perfectly legal, was stopped by an officer (who knew it was legal), and then was arrested for contempt of cop when he refused to identify.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 28, 2015)

If ignorance of the law is an excuse, than can one's ignorance of the LACK of a law be acceptable?


----------



## runnah (Sep 28, 2015)

Honestly you get what you pay for. People ***** and moan that cops are so bad but then they ***** and moan when they have to pay more in taxes.

You know why the service sucks at mcdonalds? Because everyone gets paid minimum wage. You know why cops act like dicks? Because they risk their lives and deal with scum bags every day for an average of $30k to start and around $45k after a decade of service.

Pay officers better, pay for them to have more training.


----------



## runnah (Sep 28, 2015)

Braineack said:


> The officer had one idea, the driver another.  So there was a question on interpretation.



Exactly, my definition of "too drunk to operated a lawn mower on main street" was way different than the officer's.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 28, 2015)

they have _*plenty*_ of training, the problem is they are trained that everyone is a criminal, and everyone is out to kill them, and its better for them to shoot first and ask questions later--in order to come home at night--than to have discretion and deescalate.  Go use a police training simulator for weapons training, and try to walk away with another opinion.

They hardly risk their lives.  And they know what they are going into signing up for the force.  They have full immunity under the law for the crimes they commit, they cant be fired, and they have a code of silence.  They have no incentive whatsoever to behave.  A typical cop sits in a car, runs plates, and eat donuts all day--they are quite literally tax collectors.

The idea that increasing the salary of police is going to lead to better policing is laughable at best.  Plus the more tickets they write the more overtime they can collect--so there's the incentive right there.

the average salary is closer to $50K a year too...not bad for a HS dropout.  And it only goes up from there.

In my county, the base rate is ~$53,000 and an officer can expect to make between 56K to 86K within their first 4 years.


----------



## runnah (Sep 28, 2015)

Braineack said:


> they have _*plenty*_ of training, the problem is they are trained that everyone is a criminal, and everyone is out to kill them, and its better for them to shoot first and ask questions later--in order to come home at night--than to have discretion and deescalate.  Go use a police training simulator for weapons training, and try to walk away with another opinion.
> 
> They hardly risk their lives.  And they know what they are going into signing up for the force.  They have full immunity under the law for the crimes they commit, they cant be fired, and they have a code of silence.  They have no incentive whatsoever to behave.  A typical cop sits in a car, runs plates, and eat donuts all day--they are quite literally tax collectors.
> 
> ...



Well I disagree. The issue is that they are not getting enough of the _*right*_ training. There is very little training that involves dealing with a situation verbally rather than physically. 

I think that you are being a bit hard on them.


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 28, 2015)

Derrel said:


> The guy instead told the street-level officer to do what he should have done without being prompted: *to ASK a more-experienced, higher-ranking, and presumably SMARTER and BETTER-INFORMED superior officer* how to handle a situation that he was clearly incapable of handling on his own. Instead, the street-level officer continued to repeatedly pursue his unproductive, combative approach. He clearly needs more training and a major attitude adjustment because he was unable to handle a very simple interaction with a member of the public. This is typical of many young men in their 20's and early 30's...not enough seasoning to handle interacting with the public, an inability to demonstrate sound judgement, reasoning, and the inability to even admit that he DOESN'T KNOW SQUAT ABOUT what he is asserting he has a legal right to do.
> 
> The young, inexperienced trooper showed very poor skills in conflict resolution, and was a terrible representative of his department. There's a reason he is at the very bottom of the ranks. People have a right to expect all LEO's to KNOW the LAWS they are supposedly enforcing! Again, ignorance of the law is no excuse...how many times have we heard that old maxim applied to citizens? And yet, we have people defending flat-out BAD COPS. That's not logical.


I couldn't agree more. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack (Sep 28, 2015)

When they stop going around shooting dogs, I'll stop being so hard on them.

fwiw I have friends and family in law enforcement, and work with law enforcement myself.  I'm not a cop hater by any means--just a hater.


----------



## waday (Sep 28, 2015)

Braineack said:


> I'm not a cop hater by any means.


Totally agree. I have family that are officers, and I get treated like I'm a cop hater just because I ask questions.

I don't understand the whole 'with us or against us' mentality.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 28, 2015)

because that's how most gangs work...


----------



## runnah (Sep 28, 2015)

waday said:


> I don't understand the whole 'with us or against us' mentality.



Because it's an easy way to end any sort of debate. Just like "What? do you hate freedom?" when any sort of outlandish patriot act nonsense was brought up.

Ex: "I don't think kids should have McDonalds for 3 meals a day"
"What do you hate capitalism and America?"


----------



## Braineack (Sep 28, 2015)

or my favorite (when someone stand up for his rights):

"what are you some sort of Constitutionalist?"







3:45  "what's wrong with you? are you some kind of Constitutionalist?"


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 28, 2015)

My service at McDonald's was the same as pretty much everywhere else; from what I remember.
If cops act like dicks because they are not paid well, then why aren't they all dicks?
The ones that are dicks are dicks because they are dicks!  And.....they F it up for all the other great cops out there.

That being said, I can't imagine what would happen to me if I refused to show identification.  In order for nothing to happen to me, I would have been kissing that cops ass and then go home and teach my son (again and again) why he has to kiss a cops ass.  To hell with the law, just stay alive.

UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Designer (Sep 28, 2015)

This thread is leaning political.


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 28, 2015)

Braineack said:


> or my favorite (when someone stand up for his rights):
> 
> "what are you some sort of Constitutionalist?"
> 
> ...



Wow - just amazes me how the civilian can get away with that without a beat down, or being tased, or shot.  INCREDIBLE.


----------



## waday (Sep 28, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> The ones that are dicks are dicks because they are dicks! And.....they F it up for all the other great cops out there.


So true. It's not like we mean all cops, just those that are doing wrong. They act like we're anti-American, when we're just trying to honestly figure out why cops that are in the wrong legally aren't held accountable for their mistakes. They're humans, of course they are. All humans make mistakes. They should be held accountable just like everyone else.

People should always question authority. If people in authority can't respond with the correct answer, respond that they don't know but will find the correct answer, and/or respond with a cool, clear attitude, then they shouldn't be in a position of power.

If we get to the point as a society where we can't question authority, we've lost our rights.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 28, 2015)

How it should go:


----------



## Braineack (Sep 28, 2015)

unless im allowed to walk up to a police officer and do the same with his gun and then arrest him if he happens to be in some violation of some law...


----------



## waday (Sep 28, 2015)

480sparky said:


> How it should go:


How it should go. Doesn't always go like that.


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 28, 2015)

waday said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > The ones that are dicks are dicks because they are dicks! And.....they F it up for all the other great cops out there.
> ...



My father was a cop in Kansas City misery years ago.  Yup, humans!     It really really sucks when a few bad apples taint the overwhelming majority.
Different thread derail, but makes me think of this http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/upshot/what-the-numbers-show-about-nfl-player-arrests.html?_r=0
Again, the few IDIOTS percentage wise, really screw up public perceptions and attitudes.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 28, 2015)

waday said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > How it should go:
> ...



here's how it should have gone:


[intentional blank space*]















* because there should have been zero interaction whatsoever, and no blatant misquote/interpretation/violation of terry vs ohio.  Someone doing something perfectly legal should have every expectation not to be singled out and "investigated" with no legal basis.  And a cop cant quote "officer safety" to get away with a free "frisk".


----------



## waday (Sep 28, 2015)

Braineack said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


Good point. The problem is we don't know why the officer was called--in other words, if the man did anything outside of walk down the street with a gun hanging out. From the sounds of it, the officer was called into the situation due to several 911 calls, not just a friendly stop and frisk. Unfortunately, we don't know the whole story in this case. In addition, the man should have denied the officer's request to look at the gun. He didn't. Poop.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 28, 2015)

it doesn't matter--dispatch should tell the callers to go f themselves and be charged themselves for misuse of emergency systems.

if it was anything more, then they WOULD have detained him with some reasonable suspicion to go on.  But this was a "bad apple" cop and his "bad apple" buddies (crazy how many spoiled in the bunch showed up) that wanted to treat a good law abiding citizen doing 100% legal activity like a criminal.


----------



## waday (Sep 28, 2015)




----------



## Braineack (Sep 28, 2015)

hey man, if the police report says that's what happened, then that's what happened.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Sep 28, 2015)

I have been to allot of countries the US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, France, Germany, Britain and I once considered joining the police in Ireland, where Im from. 
The one thing I can say is the same with police probably everywhere is the us and them mentality but the police are a reflection of the societies they come from and you can't simple blame the police for society being broken.


----------



## MLCIII (Oct 3, 2015)

They both need a class in de-escalation. What's wrong with saying, "I'm using my completely legal drone to legally video your building because I can. My name is Joe Schmoe, I'm a tax-paying citizen . I carry legal and current identification because it's a law to do so. Nice to meet you." 
Why can't the cop say something like, "I'm just wondering what your motivations are. Flying over and videoing our physical security measures seams mighty suspicious. I'm sure your video is going to be great or whatever, I just need to know that you mean no harm to our facilities." It's the same response the Air Force has to people photographing the flight line, only we've actually made it illegal. Why? Because there's reasonable suspicion that the media being created has the potential to aid in compromising our physical security. Maybe not by the completely well-meaning person recording it but by the audience on YouTube that now access to it. But I digress.
Its not hard. The kid with the drone was right, but that doesn't mean he has to be a dick about it. And the cop is obviously on high alert because it seems cool these days to shoot his friends. But he doesn't have to be a dick about it. We have this culture in the States that we're all invinsible, and it leads to confrontation like this. It's dumb. I feel bad for cops right now. It's their Vietnam. 


On another note, the first video and the one with the diminutive cop with the mustache should in no way be compared. That cop was a complete fool for drawing his weapon or saying the things he said. He was put on administrative leave, from what I remember, and for good reason.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 3, 2015)

there's no law that says you need to carry identification.  and there's PLENTY of case law that says what an officer can approach and detain you for.


----------



## MLCIII (Oct 3, 2015)

This can quickly become a pissing match. I'm just saying that it's not unreasonable to expect both cop AND citizen to act cordially. 
I'm interested in any case study you can find that states a police officer can't question or even detain anyone for any reason. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that a person can be detained for up to 48 hours while they figure out if they even have probable cause to arrest you! So saying a cop can only approach someone in very specific situations seams a bit reaching.


----------



## waday (Oct 3, 2015)

MLCIII said:


> citizen to act cordially


Citizens don't have to act cordially. They can curse at the officers or flick them off if they want without being questioned, detained, or ticketed.

Not saying that anyone should, but they can. We have that right.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 3, 2015)

Look at the person's Youtube account - he has posted about a dozen videos like this a month (at least for the past 2-3 months, I didn't go back further). Does he have a job? a life? or is he making enough money doing these videos to live on? I don't know, but people are making money from ads that accompany their videos - that's why people are doing this, to get views and followers and make money.

I have done work that involved going into neighborhoods that are on the news with drug deals and shootings on a regular basis and it isn't just late night anymore. I've had to call a family that I couldn't get to their house because streets were closed due to a shooting (then call our main office to make them aware of it to let my coworkers know not to come down there). And not just a one time incident. I've seen enough myself, officers are having to deal with enough out there without people with cameras trying to create a situation just to make money.

Most people doing their jobs including police officers are not the ones making the news, we don't see much of them unless it's a human interest story; we usually only hear about the problem situations or those who aren't doing their jobs properly.

The supervisor/sergeant made a good point saying this is relatively new and everyone is still trying to figure out what to do because rules and regs seem to be limited and somewhat lacking and are still being developed.  


And on a lighter note - that style hat is what state troopers and sheriff's deputies wear in my area. Not probably going for a fashion trend there.


----------



## MLCIII (Oct 3, 2015)

waday said:


> MLCIII said:
> 
> 
> > citizen to act cordially
> ...



That's a serious double standard. Ideas like this are ruining our country.


----------



## waday (Oct 3, 2015)

MLCIII said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > MLCIII said:
> ...


How? Wanting to keep my freedoms is ruining our country?


----------



## MLCIII (Oct 3, 2015)

IMHO being cooperative when you're completely innocent is in no way a loss of any freedoms, so you'll have to explain exactly what "freedoms" you'd be giving up. And you deserve every bit of your disorderly conduct charge if you decide to flip off and curse out a cop.


----------



## waday (Oct 3, 2015)

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 (Oct 3, 2015)

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 (Oct 4, 2015)

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 (Oct 5, 2015)

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 (Oct 5, 2015)

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 (Oct 5, 2015)

SCraig said:


> 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:


snerd said:


> 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.





vintagesnaps said:


> 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.



SCraig said:


> 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 (Oct 6, 2015)

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 (Oct 6, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> 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 (Oct 6, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> 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 (Oct 6, 2015)

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 (Oct 6, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> 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 (Oct 6, 2015)

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 (Oct 6, 2015)

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

using tapatalk.


----------

