Ridiculous Police News (Specific events)

[Nephlite]

Here's how this works:

Cop pulls over a sassy old lady for speeding and she gets belligerent and starts screaming at him making multiple accusations. The officer handles the situation like a normal traffic stop ignoring the woman's ranting. Everything is recorded by the dash cam and there is nothing at all that the officer did wrong. The lady proceeds to file a complaint about her rights being violated. It has to be investigated now and in the investigation the officer is proven innocent. He still got accused of violating her rights...but he did nothing wrong.

In fact, there is a video floating around of exactly this situation except with a cranky old man instead of a woman. He throws the ticket back at the officer after he rips it up then the officer makes him get out and pick up the pieces.

This is the "stuff like this" that Neph is talking about. If you, an officer of the law, are so concerned about not offending people because they might accuse you of violating their rights, then you are not doing your job.

Yeah this is what I was trying to say. Thanks. I tend to type in lingo and context is everything so a lot of it gets lost.

K-9s units are trained to "tell" on command. They are basically bullshit used to strip you of your 4th amendment right. It turns out they aren't much better at picking out cars with drugs in them verses cars without. They are REALLY good at picking out cars that the handler *thinks* has drugs in it or just wants to search.

http://nevergetbusted.com/university...ert-200-times/

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome...drug_dogs.html

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...acker-drug-dog

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley...b_2063820.html

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/an...211-1oprv.html

Seen the video of the first one. Never did K-9 training but if what this guy says is legit then all those hundreds of scientific journals they published about K-9 Training are useless. I wouldn't doubt it that it can happen but I seriously don't think it's as big a deal as they make it out to be.

[Plow]

Yeah this is what I was trying to say. Thanks. I tend to type in lingo and context is everything so a lot of it gets lost.

sorry, not believing you're talking about being reasonable as a cop in the face of unreasonable civilians while defending a cop flipping his shit on an ego trip over a perfectly reasonable civilian

[Kohan]

sorry, not believing you're talking about being reasonable as a cop in the face of unreasonable civilians while defending a cop flipping his shit on an ego trip over a perfectly reasonable civilian

This isn't Twitter. Stop typing like you're in a hurry and have a character limit. I'm sure that employing a typing style that didn't make me envision a spit-spraying frenzied lunatic would help more people understand you, even if they still didn't agree with you.

As for me, I'm one of those who hasn't any idea. I really can't tell what you're arguing about. I just see a bunch of self-righteous rambling that fails to convey any message beyond a bizarre and perplexing conviction. All of these attempts at cute stabs, mixed in with supposedly sarcastic but actually unreadable sentences, leaves your posts in dire need of comprehensible contents.

I suppose it's good practice for your future career as a piss-soaked bum screaming profanities at random passerbys, though.

[Plow]

translation: I can't handle complex sentences please simplify

read the whole discussion and you'll figure it out

[Nephlite]

I like Neph as much as the next BG poster, but there is definitely a tone of justification in his posts. People (in my experience) are not always pissed at cops just because there are bad cops and shit happens, they get upset because the good cops often do nothing to stop or restrict the bad ones, or even worse try to justify it. Justifications like "Well, if we did this for every little thing..." or "We have to act like this or we will get shot by you people!" only make it worse by emphasizing the Us vs Them situation.

Should people hassle the cops (unnecessarily)? No. Should people allow the cops to hassle them (unnecessarily)? Absolutely not. Respect is a two way street.

The thing I try to put out in my quest to "justify" actions is to let people know to look at both sides of the picture. One huge problem people have with the police is that they are uneducated. I see it (and I'm sure some of the other officers on this board will agree) as me trying to educate some of the people who don't know or who refuse to know and immediately take sides. I've said it before in other posts how police officers are part of a brotherhood. One of us falls, there's two more ready to jump in at a moments notice. Even if it's wrong or one of us fucks up, especially when it's on an incident, you can't do anything but back the person up. You might not agree with it and you might not come out of it alive, but that's still your brother. Afterwards, you take it to a nice secluded area and hash it out. If it comes to blows, then it happens. Good cops get caught up like that a lot.

Think of how it is with two supervisors. Two supervisors at your company disagree with the way one handles a situation. They won't hash it out in front of their subordinates; that undermines their authority. They do it in private and 9 times out of 10, you'll never find out about it. Same thing with police. When one of us fucks up and the other guys know about it, trust me we handle it. Either that or when the complaint comes though it gets handled by IA. A good number of complaints you'll accumulate over a career are bullshit. That small percent of 1 or 2 people or a few officers can get you blackballed faster than you can shoot. If you think you were wronged, then by all means complain about it. Don't expect because an officer got pissy with you he'll get fired, charged, etc. Hell this just recently happened:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...tml?tid=pm_pop

40 Days in the Street for threatening FLOPOTUS.

sorry, not believing you're talking about being reasonable as a cop in the face of unreasonable civilians while defending a cop flipping his shit on an ego trip over a perfectly reasonable civilian

I think he went a bit too far in his responses, but that doesn't mean he wasn't justified for being pissed off. He was getting fucked with for no reason. I probably would have gotten mad too. You want someone coming to your place of work who you don't know telling you how to do your job? Would you get mad?

Let's not forget a well-respected defense attorney said (on the officers behalf) that the officers didn't violate the kids rights. So in taking that much away from the scenario, is he wrong for getting suspicious of the guys intent and digging in to it further?

[Plow]

I think he went a bit too far in his responses, but that doesn't mean he wasn't justified for being pissed off. He was getting fucked with for no reason. I probably would have gotten mad too. You want someone coming to your place of work who you don't know telling you how to do your job? Would you get mad?

Let's not forget a well-respected defense attorney said (on the officers behalf) that the officers didn't violate the kids rights. So in taking that much away from the scenario, is he wrong for getting suspicious of the guys intent and digging in to it further?

a. Yes, he's wrong for getting suspicious of a guy because his window was only rolled partway down.

b. He didn't get suspicious, he went on a power trip. Sorry, but when you say "He's perfectly innocent and he knows his rights" as you're claiming suspicion and rifling through their shit, you just fucked yourself out of that argument.



All your arguments about "that's how we get the job done!" are the precise problem here, you're literally trying to put yourself above the law. You don't have the right to say that not making eye contact, or OMFG HOLY SHIT QUESTIONING AN OFFICER makes you a fucking suspect.

[Helm]

translation: I can't handle complex sentences please simplify

Yeah, I bet that's the problem right there.

[Drex]

you're literally trying to put yourself above the law

No, the legal system has put cops "above the law" in this instance, which means it's not "above the law" at all. Pointing that out is not biased, and if the court system says that police do have the right to behave that way, then they do until the court system says otherwise. Joe Armchair-Lawyer's interpretation of his rights is irrelevant and using the police as a proxy for his anger at the "injustice" of being screened just makes him look like a tool.

That said, the goal from the beginning was obviously to upload the video and not to actually change the cops' mind, so mission accomplished anyway.

One huge problem people have with the police is that they are uneducated.

An even more important and dangerous problem is that they treat cops as a proxy for whatever it is that they are really angry about.

[Plow]

No, the legal system has put cops "above the law" in this instance, which means it's not "above the law" at all.

Flipping your shit because he didn't roll the window down far enough is yet another step above the law.


It's one thing to give cops special powers under this one certain circumstance, it's quite another to allow them to rampantly abuse it.

[Rhinox]

Woman beaten for guilt by association
http://www.yourblackworld.net/wp-con...3/07/08/s1.jpghttp://www.yourblackworld.net/wp-con...3/07/08/s2.jpg

http://www.yourblackworld.net/2013/0...on-the-ground/

spoiler is only because it's a long ass article.

one of the commenter on the site

This story is sum bulllllllshittttt!! This girl was in dennys actin a d**n fool!! I was a patron there with sum friends and we saw the entire incident. These kids brought the fight from outside inside dennys and continued to fight and tear dennys to shreds! I mean they were on tables, counter tops..they grabbed knives and dishes and was throwing s**t and everything! As far as her being attacked by the police…yea she was tackled by the female officer who took her straight to the ground…but it was becasue as soon as she walked out the door she started going ballistic on the policeman. .kickin, fighting and punching and everything. .it as then that the female officer tackled her to the ground…and hard. .I mean reallllly hard…Im not saying she deserved what happened but you would think young ladies know how to act as such…she lied about sitting by the window in dennys enjoying a meal with friends…this had nothing at all to do with race…it had everything thing to do with n****z not knowing how to act. n****z meaning ignorant people and ignorant people can be black, white, purple or red…she just happened to be blac..I just feel like if ur going to pull the race card…use it when its appropriate. .smh #andiamalsoablackwoman

[Byrthnoth]

The only things more reputable than yourblackworld's journalistic integrity are the anonymous comments.

[hey]

Let's not forget a well-respected defense attorney said (on the officers behalf) that the officers didn't violate the kids rights.

Wait, is this a joke?

I think he went a bit too far in his responses, but that doesn't mean he wasn't justified for being pissed off. He was getting fucked with for no reason. I probably would have gotten mad too. You want someone coming to your place of work who you don't know telling you how to do your job? Would you get mad?

In literally any other job, if you react that way just because you got pissed off by some idiot, you'd be fired.

[chiyio]

Yeah this is what I was trying to say. Thanks. I tend to type in lingo and context is everything so a lot of it gets lost.



Seen the video of the first one. Never did K-9 training but if what this guy says is legit then all those hundreds of scientific journals they published about K-9 Training are useless. I wouldn't doubt it that it can happen but I seriously don't think it's as big a deal as they make it out to be.

Show me these journals. The actual scientific tests of it show that in practice the officers can't find SHIT. I gave you links, and studies, this makes you feel some cog diss so you have to say something, but show me some actual evidence.

Now, when they just let the dog do the job, in that case the dog can find something, but in every study done that's not what happened. Instead, the officers make the dogs tell on what they think is a hit.

[Ashmada]

The thing I try to put out in my quest to "justify" actions is to let people know to look at both sides of the picture. One huge problem people have with the police is that they are uneducated.

Well, yes. If they were educated, they'd hardly join the police.


(that was a joke)

Even if it's wrong or one of us fucks up, especially when it's on an incident, you can't do anything but back the person up.

That kind of attitude belongs in the playground (and on the TV screen, I guess), not in the adult world, especially not from authority figures; and that's the whole problem here.
It's this attitude that creates a climate where abuses of power can flourish and indirectly sows distrust between police and civilians.
Integrity should trump bro mentality any time.

(and clearly, you've never worked in the private sector if you think superiors won't voice disagreements in front of subordinates)

[Ksandra]

Now, when they just let the dog do the job, in that case the dog can find something, but in every study done that's not what happened. Instead, the officers make the dogs tell on what they think is a hit.

fwiw, this is actually a really common issue most people (aka the cops in this instance) don't even realize they're doing. You've all seen dog/horse tricks where someone gives them a math problem and the animal is magically able to stomp out the answer. It's been documented how the owners really do think their animal is a genius without realizing that they give the animal subtle clues (raised eyebrow, face twitch, etc.) on when to stop stomping because they want the animal to be right.

[jmc]

Well, yes. If they were educated, they'd hardly join the police.


(that was a joke)


That kind of attitude belongs in the playground (and on the TV screen, I guess), not in the adult world, especially not from authority figures; and that's the whole problem here.
It's this attitude that creates a climate where abuses of power can flourish and indirectly sows distrust between police and civilians.
Integrity should trump bro mentality any time.

(and clearly, you've never worked in the private sector if you think superiors won't voice disagreements in front of subordinates)

Officers can't afford to argue with other officers while working a call, depending on the situation we have way more important things to be focused on than someone working with me fucking up.

If it happens usually just let it play out, and let the supervisors or IA take care of it.

(Not saying a officer violating a individuals rights is not important, but arguing with a fellow officer/focusing on that instead of the call is a good way to get inured, shot or have a large fight break out)

[chiyio]

fwiw, this is actually a really common issue most people (aka the cops in this instance) don't even realize they're doing. You've all seen dog/horse tricks where someone gives them a math problem and the animal is magically able to stomp out the answer. It's been documented how the owners really do think their animal is a genius without realizing that they give the animal subtle clues (raised eyebrow, face twitch, etc.) on when to stop stomping because they want the animal to be right.

They actually use the famous math horse as an example in one of those links I posted. I know they aren't always doing it on purpose, but the dog picks up on your body language and that you'd really like to search that car/house/bag/whatever and so gives you what you are looking for. They're being used as a dousing rod, but instead of water they "find" drugs. Oh, it dipped, we should dig a hole here and see if we find water. How anybody can try to defend it is laughable and they've definitely never actually looked into whatever "hundreds of scientific journals" they seem to think are out there.

The research is very clear. Dogs can definitely be trained to find drugs, but that's not what law enforcement k-9 units do. Those units find legal justification for searches. These are completely different things with different goals that give completely different outcomes.

Trying to pass one off as the other in the face of clear evidence is called denial.

[jmc]

So law enforcement k-9s are only used to obtain legal probable cause and thats it? They never find anything they are searching for on their own?

[chiyio]

So law enforcement k-9s are only used to obtain legal probable cause and thats it? They never find anything they are searching for on their own?

They can and do, but that's not how they are used. Again, look at the studies.

[Niiro]

I think the message is that using dogs to give probable cause for a search is faulty because of these flaws.

If you have the right to search a given area a dog is useful for finding things, but to use the dog in order to get a reason to search is flawed because a handler can easily cue their dog to "find" something, sometimes unintentionally, and essentially give themselves probable cause to search whatever they want because "the dog got a hit".