[smacintush]

Link

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Well, see, that's because the United States is the only country on the planet where the government or law enforcement ever does anything bad. I mean, countries in Central and South America couldn't possibly have corrupt law enforcement, you know.

Typical Amaracan position, to orientate itself with countries lower on the ladder. What about Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada...? But I wonder, maybe none of these other countries have the urge to play world policeman in their own right ("ZOMG! IWAQI WMDs!11").

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

And of course the federal government in the US oppresses its people more than any other country, including Cuba, China, North Korea, and hell - every other dictatorship in known history.

Again, why would the land of the free (Pshaw!) orientate itself with known un-free countries?! Where is all the liberty and freedom compared to Europe?

PB.

[ApertureValue]

Oh, brother. Here we go again...

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure 

I was very respectful, as they'd want me to be, and it didn't hurt me to react as I did.

?! Why the hell would I be very or even respectful to some state employee? It's my damn tax money at work, it is me who can demand some fricking respect here!!!
If I get pulled over for no reason but boredom or "hunting quota", I tell them what I think about that. Generally - if they apologize for wasting my and the state's time, then I'm polite. But that's as far as it goes.

PB.

[iranfromthezoo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If they want my respect, they need to stop sitting at the bottom of hills to catch people who have gotten a speed boost and start actually nabbing dangerous people.

Chuck, You and I have never disagreed on anything but I have to disagree with you on this. I know that behind the computer that this can seem like "bashing" but please don't take it that way. As you know I am a fulltime firefighter here but I am also a reserve officer for the same city. Yes I do write traffic tickets and yes I do go to crime calls. What most people don't understand is I don't have a quota to meet like everyone thinks but I do have an obligation. If I am sitting on a residential road here where the speed limit is 25 and I have a clown going 50 I promise you I will pull him over because he is going way to fast in a residential area, what if a kid ran out in front of him? I have seen it happen time and time again! I have also been on way to many calls that could have been prevented by using a seatbelt or slowing down. I have seen way to many children killed because of reckless drivers. On June 24 I worked a call where two 4 yr olds were ejected from a car and killed while two other people were trapped in a burning car all because a guy came barreling down a hill going 65 in a 55 on a two lane highway.

So yeah I do think that I am helping keep people safe by pulling over speeders and giving them tickets. If your respectful, nice and generally cool I won't write you. But I will definitely write you if you have a unrestrained child or anything that endangers someone else. You can also be guaranteed that I ride my beat and if I see something out of the ordinary I will get out and investigate and when someone calls 911 I promise I will respond as safely as possible.

I treat everyone I come in contact with the utmost respect but that doesn't mean I don't let my guard down. Just because you get busted for speeding doesn't mean the cop is trying to be a butthole but he has seen what so many of you guys haven't. You should come join me next time I have to tell a mother her two 4 year old children are dead because of some idiot driver.

We get blamed for not slowing down speeders but, when we do, we get blamed for not fighting crime, it's a lose lose situation. Please reconsider your position and don't say that most cops are jerks, no it takes just a select few to make us all look bad, same goes with firefighters.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

As you know I am a fulltime firefighter here but I am also a reserve officer for the same city. Yes I do write traffic tickets and yes I do go to crime calls. What most people don't understand is I don't have a quota to meet like everyone thinks but I do have an obligation. If I am sitting on a residential road here where the speed limit is 25 and I have a clown going 50 I promise you I will pull him over because he is going way to fast in a residential area, what if a kid ran out in front of him?

That isn't remotely what I'm talking about. Going 50 in a residential area is dangerous. That's the sort of thing I'd like to see the cops around here do something about, but they're too busy messing with their radar gun by the side of the highway or wasting half an hour haranguing somebody because his windows are tinted.

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

We get blamed for not slowing down speeders but, when we do, we get blamed for not fighting crime, it's a lose lose situation.

Stop speeders on residential roads, sure. But on the freeway, I'd much rather have the cops arrest the maniacs who constantly try to run me off the road rather than waste their time on people who are driving safely at 75-80 mph.

[ghporter]

The simple fact is that for the most part, individual police officers do not choose their daily assignments. The shirt in charge has an "agenda" for the force, and so commanders divvy out people onto assignments that do what the boss says needs doing. It's the political end that needs to be reminded "when all the traffic is safely doing 75MPH, maybe ticketing people isn't helpful" and "ticketing people for blitzing through neighborhoods is a very good thing."

I was once ticketed for rolling through a stop sign. The officer that ticketed me was in the cross street, parked on the side of the road, so it wasn't as if I hadn't seen him. It WAS that the stop sign was concealed by trees. I was polite, accepted the ticket, and then took pictures of the scene, including where he'd been parked and all the junk food litter that was there. When I fought the ticket, I simply told the city judge that the stop sign wasn't visible, the police car was, that I had my family with me at the time, and that I didn't understand how I would be expected to stop for a sign that nobody could see-along with the pictures of said sign hidden by the trees, and the pictures of where the officer had been parked. The judge looked over the pictures for a minute and then wrote "dismissed" on the docket paperwork. I was STILL polite about the officer, but I did reflect that it looked like he or at least some officer had parked there a lot, taking advantage of what could be considered a traffic trap. A few weeks later that tree was trimmed.

I should also point out that even if an officer has had a difficult time with someone he's apprehending, it is HIS JOB to not loose his cool. Once the guy was on the ground, with a bunch of officers around, there was NO threat, and no reason to do anything but cuff him and load him in the car. Period. If you can't keep your cool, being a police officer is not a good job choice.

[Sealobo]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Because a tazer won't kill you when a gun might? A tazer allows someone to defend themselves or control someone without causing permanent damage (like death).

then why not use the stick?

i think tazer empowered the policeman to be trigger happy without thinking much about consequence.

[hyteckit]

That's f*cked up. Police went overboard and overreacted.

on a sidenote:

If this guy was Black, you'll have people calling this racially motivated, with 6 white cops ganging up on a black dude.

reminder:
Don't drive an ugly green Toyota Solara. You might be tazed by the police just for driving one.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

then why not use the stick?

Because it's more likely to do more damage and less effective at subduing?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by starman 

SO while everyone's wasting time speculating about how much this country sucks because of one video, has any of you smartasses bothered to see if the cops got reprimanded, or are you all going to just bash the U.S. further?

Come now, it's far more fun to bash the US and pretend like corruption and bad things happen "only in America".

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

Typical Amaracan position, to orientate itself with countries lower on the ladder. What about Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada...? But I wonder, maybe none of these other countries have the urge to play world policeman in their own right ("ZOMG! IWAQI WMDs!11").

Again, why would the land of the free (Pshaw!) orientate itself with known un-free countries?! Where is all the liberty and freedom compared to Europe?

PB.

You are completely missing the point - it's the whole "only in America" thing that is utterly asinine. Allow me to repeat what I posted earlier - every country has problems. If you want to talk specifically about corruption within local law enforcement, America is not alone, nor is America the worst perpetrator of police violence. It doesn't happen only in America. It happens everywhere.

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

?! Why the hell would I be very or even respectful to some state employee?

Because the state employee in question has a gun? I'm just saying - just like I would be respectful (or at least compliant) with someone holding a .45 to my skull demanding my purse, I'm going to be compliant with someone who's packing a belt full of things that will make me feel some level of physical discomfort ranging from short-lived electric shock and blunt trauma to, you know, death.

I'm not saying that in this particular case, the cops were right in tazing that guy. However, in any situation involving a person in uniform, you're always going to be better off being respectful and polite rather than mouthing off or acting like they're some asshole who just joined the police force to torture puppies and small children.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Because it's more likely to do more damage and less effective at subduing?

There's also the "because it requires the officer to come much closer to the person in question, which can result in far more bodily injury to both parties" argument. If you're, say, dealing with a belligerent individual under the influence of something, you're far better off tasing them from a distance to subdue them than you are trying to get up right next to them so that you can get them in a chokehold with your nightstick.

Electrocution, at the amperage provided by a taser, is going to disarm/immobilize/subdue you. It's not going to instantly kill you. It's not going to cause long-lasting injury.

Getting shot, however, or smashed in some part of your skeleton with a heavy stick, could result in injuries that can last a lifetime. I think that the whole law-enforcement-equipped-with-tasers thing has gotten completely overblown. It seems to me, from all points, to be much better than the alternatives.

[iranfromthezoo]

We do not use tasers...you only get sprayed or shot with me. Luckily everyone prefers neither and have only had to spray about 5 times in 4 years. Never discharged my service weapon, except into an A/C unit...haha

[ApertureValue]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That isn't remotely what I'm talking about. Going 50 in a residential area is dangerous. That's the sort of thing I'd like to see the cops around here do something about, but they're too busy messing with their radar gun by the side of the highway or wasting half an hour haranguing somebody because his windows are tinted.

THOSE ARE THE LAWS. If the police don't enforce violations they see, then how can any municipality or town put any faith that law enforcement will do anything at all? The purpose of laws is what? For people to follow, that's what. If there aren't any consequences to not following the rules, then what good are rules anyway?

I'm not under the pretense that all police officers are in the right all the time nor am I insinuating that there aren't corrupt, malign or just plain idiotic officers, but for anybody to make blanket statements about law enforcement as being this way is ludicrous.

I suppose those of us who have done these jobs respectably and under the best moral pretenses have a different attitude about the subject...every time this comes up here, it always ends up with two diametrically-opposed sides.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ApertureValue 

THOSE ARE THE LAWS. If the police don't enforce violations they see, then how can any municipality or town put any faith that law enforcement will do anything at all? The purpose of laws is what? For people to follow, that's what.

The law was made for man, not man for the law. The purpose of laws is to serve the public good.

Trying to run me off the road is against the rules, but those people are allowed to go on unmolested while the police are busy "enforcing violations" (which apparently means being a useless waste of tax dollars in your world). You can't possibly tell me pulling a guy over to yap at him for half an hour over a tinted window is more important, more central to a police officer's job than keeping the public safe.

Originally Posted by ApertureValue 

If there aren't any consequences to not following the rules, then what good are rules anyway?

More good than if they are enforced in a way that harms the people.

[PB2K]

it's the same in the netherlands. they waste their time collecting fines instead of fighting crime.
the police is an industry

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by PB2K 

it's the same in the netherlands. they waste their time collecting fines instead of fighting crime.
the police is an industry

Hm, well, over here they don't behave like _unsupervised_ concentration camp goons for all I know. This stuff looks rather like gang brutality ("we kick you around you can do nothing about it"), only that the gang is paid by the citizens itself. Something down to the core is wrong, that that must be a general mentality thing.

PB.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

Hm, well, over here they don't behave like _unsupervised_ concentration camp goons for all I know. This stuff looks rather like gang brutality ("we kick you around you can do nothing about it"), only that the gang is paid by the citizens itself. Something down to the core is wrong, that that must be a general mentality thing.

PB.

You appear to be making the assumption that every single police officer in the United States behaves in this manner. I have no idea what the statistics are, but I'm betting that for every sadistic twit on a local police force, you've got nine or ten good cops who actually care about protecting the general public.

Videos like the OP's are stupid - all they do is propagate the idea that cops are evil and that we should resist "the man" as much as possible, because cops are only out to get you. It makes life a hell of a lot harder for the huge population of legit, kind, ethical cops out there.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ApertureValue 

THOSE ARE THE LAWS. If the police don't enforce violations they see, then how can any municipality or town put any faith that law enforcement will do anything at all? The purpose of laws is what? For people to follow, that's what. If there aren't any consequences to not following the rules, then what good are rules anyway?

Enforce the law-issue the citation, explain what it's for, tell the individual how to find out his court date. There's no reason to scold anyone for a violation. NONE. Busted tail light, failure to signal a lane change, tinting too dark, whatever. Issue the citation and be done with it. To go beyond that shows that the officer was taking the offense personally. It isn't HIS law, it's the state's, and if he takes that sort of statute so personally, what's he going to do when he comes across a much more serious offense?

I'm still saying that he overreacted, and that an officer that loses his cool over such a relatively minor thing-even if he gets backtalk-is in the wrong line of work. And let's just theorize here about WHY the individual talked back-was it because the officer was taking the whole thing personally instead of just issuing the citation?

[ApertureValue]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You appear to be making the assumption that every single police officer in the United States behaves in this manner. I have no idea what the statistics are, but I'm betting that for every sadistic twit on a local police force, you've got nine or ten good cops who actually care about protecting the general public.

This is all I'm saying, but it's obviously falling on deaf ears. So Chuckit saw an officer scolding somebody for half an hour about the guy's tinted windows. Ok, that would be the example of the sadistic twit. It is just fact that not all officers are like that and, once again, you can't control every single person, no matter what their job is.

How about the top-executives of the Enron scandal? How about the Clinton sex scandal, for Buddha's sake! Our own PRESIDENTS get caught doing things they shouldn't, and acting in a manner we, as the public at large, wouldn't agree with.

There are no "pure" cross-sections of people in a moral or ethical sense anywhere on this planet. But to generalize is absurd. There are outstanding officers out there, many whom I've worked with, and they're out there protecting my butt and YOURS! If they have to write a thousand citations for tinted windows for every criminal they stop, then so be it.

[ApertureValue]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Trying to run me off the road is against the rules, but those people are allowed to go on unmolested while the police are busy "enforcing violations" (which apparently means being a useless waste of tax dollars in your world).

And you can't, in good conscience, tell me there was an officer who witnessed that and chose not to do anything about it. An act has to be seen to be acted upon.

[Teronzhul]

Originally Posted by ApertureValue 

And you can't, in good conscience, tell me there was an officer who witnessed that and chose not to do anything about it. An act has to be seen to be acted upon.

The point of course being that if the officer is engrossed in writing trivial citations, that he won't be able to position himself to witness more egregious violations. As per the example earlier in this thread where the officer was camped out watching a known obscured stop sign simply so he could get easy to land tickets written and fulfill his quota. Certainly he could be doing SOMETHING better with his time?

[ApertureValue]

Ok, I give up.

[turtle777]

Isn't ticket and citation quotas enough evidence that it's not only about keeping the roads safe ?

-t

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Videos like the OP's are stupid - all they do is propagate the idea that cops are evil and that we should resist "the man" as much as possible, because cops are only out to get you. It makes life a hell of a lot harder for the huge population of legit, kind, ethical cops out there.

Videos like this are the public's only refuge. Bad cops use the badge like a license to do whatever they want and get away with it.

Cops everywhere are using the Taser as a way to avoiding physically restraining people. It should only be used when an officer is protecting himself or the public - just like a gun - not to make people submit to commands.

The bad 50% of cops are indeed making the good 50% of cops look bad.

The Taser has been a wonder for dealing with crazy people, who otherwise would be capped or clubbed. Psychiatric groups have spoken out that the Taser has been a godsend for their clients, who otherwise would be hospitalized or dead. I hope public reaction against Taser abuse doesn't lead to banning it.

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Isn't ticket and citation quotas enough evidence that it's not only about keeping the roads safe ?

-t

THERE ARE NO QOUTAS! allcaps

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

THERE ARE NO QOUTAS! allcaps

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, does it matter if it's called something else? When officers get mandatory overtime because there aren't enough citations written (seems to happen here now and then), does it really matter if it's called a "quota" or just mandatory overtime?

As I've said before, it's not the officers, it's the administration directing them that determines where they'll be and what they'll be doing. The officer I mentioned above was working on Thanksgiving...I'm certain he didn't volunteer for that.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

THERE ARE NO QOUTAS! allcaps

I'm sure thousands of police officers now breath a sigh of relief...

-t

[iranfromthezoo]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, does it matter if it's called something else? When officers get mandatory overtime because there aren't enough citations written (seems to happen here now and then), does it really matter if it's called a "quota" or just mandatory overtime?

As I've said before, it's not the officers, it's the administration directing them that determines where they'll be and what they'll be doing. The officer I mentioned above was working on Thanksgiving...I'm certain he didn't volunteer for that.

GH that may be where you are but in MS no law enforcement agency has quotas because there is a law against it. Yes we have mandatory overtime but its not for writing more tickets it usually because people are needed to work because of min staffing.

Heck our city is suffering tremendously through this recession and the city's administration is cutting back on the police and fire benefits but spending millions of dollars on a new city hall and other frivolous crap. So we have decided not to write tickets unless the drivers are absolutely being stupid...Why should we write tickets for a city that doesn't appreciate us? But that is something else altogether.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

GH that may be where you are but in MS no law enforcement agency has quotas because there is a law against it. Yes we have mandatory overtime but its not for writing more tickets it usually because people are needed to work because of min staffing.

Heck our city is suffering tremendously through this recession and the city's administration is cutting back on the police and fire benefits but spending millions of dollars on a new city hall and other frivolous crap. So we have decided not to write tickets unless the drivers are absolutely being stupid...Why should we write tickets for a city that doesn't appreciate us? But that is something else altogether.

You have two exceptional situations there: the state makes it illegal for the department to establish quotas, AND your department is together enough to do something about getting your benefits cut while the city spends money on stupid stuff. These are very exceptional, and I applaud both Jackson and your department's people. But in a lot of places it's different.

[ApertureValue]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

You have two exceptional situations there: the state makes it illegal for the department to establish quotas, AND your department is together enough to do something about getting your benefits cut while the city spends money on stupid stuff. These are very exceptional, and I applaud both Jackson and your department's people. But in a lot of places it's different.

I guess it's exceptional here, too. No quotas, and overtime because police and fire are grossly understaffed. We're shutting down two fire stations a day because of staffing.

[ThinkInsane]

Does anyone have an unedited version of this video? Without the ridiculous commentary from a narrator that doesn't even know which state this took place in (Georgia, not SC as stated)? And how exactly did he pass the field sobriety test with flying colors? You can't tell how he did with the nystagmus test by this video. and the rest of the field sobriety test shown he did not appear to pass with flying colors. This seems to be, in my ever humble opinion, to be edited to make entertaining television, not to show an accurate depiction of what led to him getting lit up

And he wasn't tazered because he didn't get down, he was tazered because he repeatedly was told to place his hands behind his back once he was on the ground and did not comply. When an officer went to put his hands behind his back and cuff him he pulls them away (3:46). He is then tazered.

I saw this on Digg this morning, and even though those cops did everything right, allowing the woman more leeway than required, the comments are still full of "***k the police" nonsense.

I got pulled over by a trooper a couple of weeks ago for talking on my cell phone. I wasn't, I had my right hand behind my neck and was singing with the stereo. To the trooper it looked like I was talking on the phone. I was polite, courteous, explained my side. The trooper asked if she could look at my phone. I gave it too her, she quick looked at my incoming/outgoing calls, apologized for the misunderstanding, reminded me to keep both hands on the wheel and wished me a good day. Yes, I could have made an issue out of it, taken the ticket and showed proof in court blah blah blah, but for what? So I can further inconvenience myself? Cop an attitude (no pun intended) so I can show her who she's messing with? Point out that I pay her salary and a hundred other stupid things to say just to provoke the situation? Pull out that old chestnut "I know my rights" (and I can assure you from having been on the other side of the window at traffic stops most people DO NOT have a clue as to what their rights actually are, no matter what they learned watching TV, and continue to make asses of themselves when they show up in court spouting their garbage). No, I was polite, she responded in kind, and five minutes later we were both going about our business, no harm, no foul. Is that really too much to ask?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

And he wasn't tazered because he didn't get down, he was tazered because he repeatedly was told to place his hands behind his back once he was on the ground and did not comply. When an officer went to put his hands behind his back and cuff him he pulls them away (3:46). He is then tazered.

So you're telling me that 5 police men could find no other way to handcuff a person that wasn't even struggling and putting up a physical fight ?

Sounds like they were a bit trigger happy. If they wanted, they could have cuffed him w/o the tazer. If not, they're a bunch of pansies.

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

And he wasn't tazered because he didn't get down, he was tazered because he repeatedly was told to place his hands behind his back once he was on the ground and did not comply. When an officer went to put his hands behind his back and cuff him he pulls them away (3:46). He is then tazered.

Is it possible that in the commotion the guy on the ground did not clearly hear the order to put his hands behind his back? Could he have been "combative" because he was engulfed in a bunch of officers who were already treating him like meat and yelling at him? Not an excuse, but an explanation for why he didn't do the obvious thing after getting on the ground.

I got "taken down" by Air Force police once while conducting a major inspection (an ORI for those of you that know the term-it's SERIOUS business), along with the other Senior NCO inspector and the local technician we were doing the inspection with. I tried to do exactly what the guys with the rifles told me to do, in spite of the fact that I knew it was bogus*. It was early morning, before dawn, and it was very quiet, and I still had to listen hard to make out what the guy talking to ME was saying. Adrenalin does odd things to hearing sometimes.

*The cops in this issue did not realize that there were inspectors involved, and they were doing some childish "tit-for-tat" payback against the unit whose equipment we were inspecting-something about a "spirit trophy" being swiped from their arms room and not wanting to have to win it back. The individuals involved were not particularly well thought of after this little incident was reported...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

I saw this on Digg this morning, and even though those cops did everything right, allowing the woman more leeway than required, the comments are still full of "***k the police" nonsense.

And you think that everybody else but the cops is to blame for the cops' unpopularity? If I found out that people preferred a psycho like that woman to me, I'd think it was time for some serious reflection.

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

No, I was polite, she responded in kind, and five minutes later we were both going about our business, no harm, no foul. Is that really too much to ask?

Polite? I usually consider people who interrupt me, waste my time and make false accusations against me to be kind of inconsiderate, even rude.

Also, I've never had an on-duty police officer be anything but hostile toward me. I try to be pleasant even to rude people, but I've never had a cop respond in kind. No matter how much I cooperate, keep a friendly tone, whatever, they still treat me like a criminal. The fact that you got lucky enough to find one who was relatively cool doesn't change everybody else's experiences.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So you're telling me that 5 police men could find no other way to handcuff a person that wasn't even struggling and putting up a physical fight ?

Sounds like they were a bit trigger happy. If they wanted, they could have cuffed him w/o the tazer. If not, they're a bunch of pansies.

-t

Yes, they absolutely could have done it another way. They could have used brute force which increases the risk of both the subject and the officers getting injured. If his arm was broken while attempting to cuff him (not uncommon when a subject struggles, and not brutality either, just simple body mechanics) what would you say about that? I'll take a taser hit over a beat down any day of the week. He was given a lawful order to comply and didn't. If it was a lawful order, and it was, his recourse is legal, not refusing to comply. The video is edited, you saw exactly what the producers wanted you to see. Maybe in the edited sections he did nothing untoward, but I can't say that for certain and neither can you. At the least, without seeing the whole video, there isn't enough information to say one way or the other.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Is it possible that in the commotion the guy on the ground did not clearly hear the order to put his hands behind his back? Could he have been "combative" because he was engulfed in a bunch of officers who were already treating him like meat and yelling at him? Not an excuse, but an explanation for why he didn't do the obvious thing after getting on the ground

And isn't it possible that he did hear them, was drunk and noncompliant? Again, we don't know. And my experiences with MPs (or SPs in your case) have been far different than civilian law enforcement- I'm sure you can attest to that as well lol.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And you think that everybody else but the cops is to blame for the cops' unpopularity? If I found out that people preferred a psycho like that woman to me, I'd think it was time for some serious reflection.

What's to reflect about? Even when you do everything right, go out of your way to to accommodate some weird ladies paranoia, you still get reamed for it by those watching the video. If you're a good cop, you shrug and do your job because no matter what you do, that perception isn't going to change in the minds of those that hate the cops and you have to accept that. If you're a bad cop you let it eat you up and do something stupid when the frustration gets to you. Cops also don't like other cops making their job any harder than it needs to be, and anything that fuels bad public perception makes your job harder.

Let's not forget that most of these people claiming this or that procedural error in the video I posted are flat out wrong. Do you know when I'd answer the "why did you pull me over" question? When I had your license, registration and insurance card in my hand. If you decide the reason was not compelling and decide to split, I'd rather just go to your house and collect you instead of chasing your dumb ass down.

Everyone seems to think that this stuff always gets covered up, but cops get disciplined all the time. Just because it doesn't make the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And yes, there are cops that cover for bad cops, but it's not nearly as prevalent as it once was. The days of cops being above the law are gone, or at least on the way out, as well they should be.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Also, I've never had an on-duty police officer be anything but hostile toward me. I try to be pleasant even to rude people, but I've never had a cop respond in kind. No matter how much I cooperate, keep a friendly tone, whatever, they still treat me like a criminal. The fact that you got lucky enough to find one who was relatively cool doesn't change everybody else's experiences.

I find it really hard to believe you've never had a cop act in any way but hostile towards you. Seriously, how much interaction have you had with the police? Is it just lucky that I've never had a bad experience with a cop at a traffic stop, even if I drove off with a ticket? maybe once I've gotten a bit of attitude, being a stupid kid driving way too fast, but for the most part I find that cops really are human, and they will respond to courtesy just as anyone else would. I can't believe that my experiences are the exception to the rule. Hell, I had a potentially far more serious interaction this past week and again, was treated quite politely even thought he officer would have been well within his rights to come on like a hardass, gun drawn and the works. I must be the luckiest guy in the world to deal with what must be only two decent cops in NYS, maybe the whole country, in as many weeks. I'm just not that lucky.

Can you tell me that you've never made an honest mistake in the course of your job? And if you did, what should be the repercussions of that? She thought I was using my phone when I wasn't. To me, I can see it from her perspective sitting in the median- hand to my face, lips moving. What's that look like? She didn't need to give me a chance to explain, she could have wrote me the ticket and let me plead my case with the JP. I was inconvenienced for a few minutes. I wasn't falsely accused, it was a misunderstanding. She made a mistake which she readily admitted to. She found my explanation reasonable to ask my permission to verify it by looking at my call log. She apologized. So why should I be hostile? What's that get me? A ticket and a sense of superiority that I showed her? Then I'd really have my time wasted by having to go to court with a print out of my cell phone bill to prove I wasn't on the phone at that time. That's a waste of my time. That's an interruption to my life, not a few minutes spent on the side of the highway. She made a mistake in the performance of her duty, and she apologized. I know I'm far from perfect, so I can cut someone else a bit of slack over a very minor inconvenience.

Anyway, I can see that nothing going to change preconceived notions, so I'll graciously bow out of this conversation. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

And isn't it possible that he did hear them, was drunk and noncompliant? Again, we don't know. And my experiences with MPs (or SPs in your case) have been far different than civilian law enforcement- I'm sure you can attest to that as well lol.

I think both are very possible. And again, I think it's incumbent on the people with the deadly force at their disposal (even if they didn't use it) to stay calm and not assume the guy they're trying to apprehend is intentionally uncooperative. First up: ONE officer in charge of the takedown and everybody else shuts the F up. In medical emergencies there's one person in charge of the team and if anyone else is saying anything other than answering the boss' questions, they're doing it so quietly that it can't interfere. Second: "one chance" with pulling the hands behind the back? Come on officers! Loudly and clearly say "I'm putting your hand behind your back so I can handcuff you" and then do it-if he struggles after that, it's OBVIOUSLY him.

The SPs in my little vignette were fairly junior, heard on the net that comm guys were headed out to the flightline, and decided on their own to "get them." Not "get the idiot that let someone mess around in the arms room unsupervised." And once they saw the IG hats and badges, these young men failed to grasp their significance and continued with their plan. These three guys probably got to spend an awfully long time counting how many rivets there are on a C-130 after that, because as soon as we got back to the inspection work center we talked to the SP inspectors. The major was stunned. The Chief was amused. Things went downhill for the SP inspection after that, but only for a while. With this one exception, my experience with Security Forces (their new name, since they now also fill ground combat roles in airbase defense) has been excellent-and that's due to a very well-structured chain of command and a set of checks and balances that ensures compliance with procedures and rules. With MPs, I've been only slightly less impressed, and that comes from the Army's habit of training people in one job, then sending them out to do some other job they aren't trained in-like traffic control. And they still have that structure that ensures they follow proper procedures.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

If you're a good cop, you shrug and do your job because no matter what you do, that perception isn't going to change in the minds of those that hate the cops and you have to accept that.

No offense intended, but that's defeatist hogwash. You don't get to be reviled by being consistently kind and helpful. People have bad feelings toward the police because they've had bad experiences with them.

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

Let's not forget that most of these people claiming this or that procedural error in the video I posted are flat out wrong.

Of course they're wrong. That's what I'm saying. They're just using the opportunity to vent their frustrations with the police.

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

So why should I be hostile?

I'm not saying you should be hostile. People should treat each other with kindness as much as possible. I am saying that the police (taken as a whole) fail at this miserably, not that we should.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No offense intended, but that's defeatist hogwash. You don't get to be reviled by being consistently kind and helpful. People have bad feelings toward the police because they've had bad experiences with them.

Or they've bought the stories they've heard from others-whether true or not. Most people have very little exposure to police officers, and they try to keep it that way. And most people that complain about "the police" have never actually talked with an officer. In some parts of San Antonio, I'm told that kids in elementary schools HATE when McGruff comes to school because their older siblings and even parents have told them that police officers are just hateful Anglos out to hurt them. News flash: the vast majority of SAPD officers is Hispanic and a lot of them come from some of those same neighborhoods.

I grew up in a small town with at least one city cop down the street in one direction, and a State Police trooper down the street in the other. I've experienced poor police behavior, excellent police behavior, and everything in between, but I was prepared in my youth to expect most of them to be doing their very best. I expect decent performance from the police and I'm almost always right in that expectation.[/QUOTE]

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Or they've bought the stories they've heard from others-whether true or not.

That's a good point, very true. At any rate, I find it really hard to believe the stories would continue to spread very well if they were obviously false. Like, you don't hear tons of stories warning about how the Salvation Army is going around mistreating people — because it's clear that's not what they're about.

Also, I don't know how you would avoid ever having to deal with the police. Do you just stay in your house all day? They've pulled me over for the weirdest, most unpredictable crap imaginable. It would take near omniscience to keep them away.

[Oisín]

Also, I don't know how you would avoid ever having to deal with the police. Do you just stay in your house all day? They've pulled me over for the weirdest, most unpredictable crap imaginable. It would take near omniscience to keep them away.

Not having a licence would probably help. Apart from when getting a new passport (which is twice, thus far), I can’t think of any direct dealings I’ve ever had with the police here.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Not having a licence would probably help.

Dude, most of us here are in the US.

Not being able to drive is like a death sentence. There ain't no public transportation in most places.

-t

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No offense intended, but that's defeatist hogwash. You don't get to be reviled by being consistently kind and helpful. People have bad feelings toward the police because they've had bad experiences with them.

People hate authority.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

People hate authority.

Wow, life in Iowa must really be simplistic.

-t

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Don't drive an ugly green Toyota Solara. You might be tazed by the police just for driving one.

And deservedly so.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Wow, life in Iowa must really be simplistic.

-t

Do I really have to explain myself, or would you once again twist whatever I said into the least likely meaning and squeeze out another dog-****-quality post?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's a good point, very true. At any rate, I find it really hard to believe the stories would continue to spread very well if they were obviously false. Like, you don't hear tons of stories warning about how the Salvation Army is going around mistreating people — because it's clear that's not what they're about.

Also, I don't know how you would avoid ever having to deal with the police. Do you just stay in your house all day? They've pulled me over for the weirdest, most unpredictable crap imaginable. It would take near omniscience to keep them away.

All it takes is one real incident every now and then to keep the bad press concept going. Here in San Antonio, we've had overworked cops do some bad things, and a couple of not-so-overworked cops show that they were bad eggs to begin with, and of course it all wound up in the papers-and worse, the local TV news. There's an old saw that applies here: "one 'aw crap!' cancels a million 'atta boys'." Couldn't be truer in this context.

In certain parts of San Antonio, "contact" with the police happens a lot but "direct contact" as in speaking to an officer is avoided at all costs-"they might just shoot you or haul you off and try to deport you!" (Yes, that's something I've heard around here...) Where I live, pretty much on the opposite side of town from that area, it's what I'd consider "normal" contact-every now and then someone gets pulled over for failing to signal a lane change or something, you drive to the police sub-station to report something you saw on the road, etc. Culture and cultural expectations are the big differentiator here, and since my own culture says "they work for me and I expect and demand honorable service," then that's how I see them and how I interact with them. If the cultural expectation is that the police are external oppressors, then people in that culture will actively avoid them...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Do I really have to explain myself, or would you once again twist whatever I said into the least likely meaning and squeeze out another dog-****-quality post?

No, please, spare us. Your posts speak for themselves.

Haven't you noticed how people really get annoyed and sick of your stupid (pretending to be witty) one-liner posts ? Maybe you should pay attention to comments from other forum members, to get a clue.

I haven't commented on your stuff in weeks, but it really gets lame and tired.

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

All it takes is one real incident every now and then to keep the bad press concept going. Here in San Antonio, we've had overworked cops do some bad things, and a couple of not-so-overworked cops show that they were bad eggs to begin with, and of course it all wound up in the papers-and worse, the local TV news. There's an old saw that applies here: "one 'aw crap!' cancels a million 'atta boys'." Couldn't be truer in this context.

I thought the saying was "One 'oh crap' cancels ten 'atta boys'." That seems more right to me — people remember the bad more than the good, but as long as the good is much more common, that is what people will remember. Apple's customer service is occasionally useless, but it still gets high marks because it's very simple in the average case.

I don't think one incident has to be that bad for them. If a police officer does something obviously very wrong, crucify him publicly. As ThinkInsane (I think it was him, anyway) said earlier, a lot of people don't believe the department cares about its own officers' misdeeds. I say the police need to take responsibility and prove them wrong.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Culture and cultural expectations are the big differentiator here, and since my own culture says "they work for me and I expect and demand honorable service," then that's how I see them and how I interact with them.

How do you "demand" anything from an aggressive guy with a gun and the authority to haul you off and lock you up for any reason he feels like? As ThinkInsane said, that just sounds like a way to get yourself in more trouble.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Haven't you noticed how people really get annoyed and sick of your stupid (pretending to be witty) one-liner posts ?

Hahahaha

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

All it takes is one real incident every now and then to keep the bad press concept going.

Cops are dogs: useful only when trained and leashed. At this time, the leashes are too long and the training inadequate.

How's this for a cop-caught-on-video story: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20...html?viewAll=y

This pig deserves life in prison. But he'll never see the inside of a cell, and we all know it.