[Beethoven]

In response to this thread: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=162387&highlight=Fear+Police

This is precisely why many of us are so suspicious of LEO's.

Links to Videos and court papers at bottom.


Link (but you may have to register to view. Article and links appear below.) http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/13790557p-14632251c.html



Watchdog report: Suit alleges jail brutality


Sacramento sheriff's office accused of allowing pattern of abuse by deputies


By Dorothy Korber and Christina Jewett -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 2:15 am PST Sunday, October 30, 2005


Graphic videotapes from the Sacramento County jail - one depicting an inmate lying in a pool of blood after his head hit the floor - are exhibits in a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that excessive force is sanctioned and an ongoing practice within the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department.
The videos, filed in federal court in Sacramento last week and obtained by The Bee, are from the jail's own surveillance cameras. They were subpoenaed by attorneys for plaintiff Jafar Afshar, a mortgage broker who received the head injury after being arrested for public intoxication on June 7, 2003.

Two other incidents videotaped in the downtown Sacramento jail - both involving men arrested for drunkenness - also are exhibits in the lawsuit.

One shows construction worker Mihaita Constantin, whose nose and arm were broken by deputies after he was "taken down" in July 2003 for standing instead of sitting in the jail's drunk tank, according to a report written by Deputy Timothy Pai, one of five guards who struggled with Constantin.

The third depicts a college student, Michael Hay, whose forearm was fractured in December 2000, when Deputy Santos Ramos twisted it because Hay was not following directions quickly enough, according to Ramos' deposition.

It is not clear from the tape why Afshar is pulled backward to the floor by Deputy Brett Spaid. In an incident report written shortly afterward, Spaid said Afshar swung toward him while handing over his sock during a weapon search.

Making inmates comply with deputies' orders is important to maintaining discipline in the county jail, Undersheriff John McGinness said in an interview Friday. McGinness is second in command under Sheriff Lou Blanas and has announced that he will run in 2006 to succeed Blanas.

After viewing a copy of the video provided by The Bee, McGinness said he could not comment specifically on the tapes since they are part of pending litigation, but he would talk generally about the realities of jail.

"Disruptive behavior can become infectious," McGinness said. "It can get out of control and start a riot."

The department's legal adviser, Lt. Scott Jones, also was present at the viewing and said, "What I saw in each case was definite resistance (by the inmates), in varying degrees."

Sacramento NAACP President Betty Williams, who watched the videotapes earlier, said she was sickened by the violence they depict. Williams said her organization is a clearinghouse for citizens' complaints of police brutality from all races, including - as in these three cases - whites.

"If what the deputies did inside the jail was done in street clothes outside, there would be felony charges," she said. "But because it was done within the protective walls of the Sheriff's Department, they got a slap on the hand."

No deputies involved in the incidents were fired, the Sheriff's Department said. The department would not let the deputies speak to The Bee, and the five deputies called at home did not return calls or would not comment.

Records show that Hay was turned loose about 10 hours after his arm was broken, the charges against him dropped and his broken arm untreated. Afshar, whose scalp was sutured shut at Sutter General Hospital, also was released with no criminal charges. Afshar angrily declined comment on Friday, saying he fears that publicizing the lawsuit endangers his safety.

Hay later sued the Sheriff's Department, alleging police brutality, and obtained a settlement of $147,500 in 2002. He has since left the area, his attorney said, and could not be located.

After the jailhouse skirmish, Constantin was charged with resisting arrest and battery on law enforcement officers - a case later dismissed. He pleaded no contest to the charge that brought him to the jail: driving under the influence. He died last year in a car crash that was ruled a suicide.

A law enforcement expert cited in Afshar's lawsuit said that all three videotaped incidents show excessive force by deputies and demonstrate a pattern of using pain for punishment. The expert, retired sheriff's Lt. Timothy Twomey, is a 30-year veteran with the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department who teaches college classes in custody procedure and helped design the Sacramento jail.

Twomey's review of the three cases, according to a declaration filed with the court, led him "to the inescapable conclusion that excessive force is sanctioned and deemed by unwritten policy to be acceptable and a pattern and practice with the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department."

"Such conduct breeds other incidents of excessive force," Twomey wrote.

McGinness noted in the interview that deputies are authorized to use force when necessary. "It is imperative that officers maintain control in the interest of protecting the safety of the inmates, the staff and the public who are being protected from the inmates," he said.

The Sheriff's Department did not conduct internal investigations in either the Afshar or Constantin cases, though both injured men were transported to the hospital for emergency care.

An internal investigation was conducted after Hay filed a formal citizen's complaint with the Sheriff's Department. The deputies involved in the injury were reprimanded - not for breaking Hay's arm but for failing to report his injury, according to court documents.

Gary Gorski, Afshar's attorney, said in an interview last week that he intends to use this response to create a foundation for showing that the jail's unwritten policy condones excessive force.

"In their internal affairs investigation, they determined the use of force on Hay was correct - and that establishes this behavior as standard operating procedure in the jail," Gorski said.

The video footage shows the dramatic conclusion of events that started rather mundanely: A neighbor's complaint of loud music. An intoxicated man stumbling down the street after a night on the town. And a drunk driver pulled over by the California Highway Patrol.

The video and documents in the Afshar lawsuit describe what happened next in each case:

The first incident began late on Dec. 22, 2000, when Deputy Rebecca Eubanks went to the apartment of Michael P. Hay to tell him to turn down his music. Hay had been drinking with friends at his apartment near California State University, Sacramento, where he was a student.

Hay, then 21 and apparently drunk, told her that he would keep the noise down and added, "You know, you're kind of cute," according to his own statement.

Eubanks left, but within minutes Deputy Robert Book showed up at the apartment door. Book told investigators that Hay was belligerent and interfered with his finding out what was going on, "so I handcuffed him and walked him downstairs."

He and Eubanks arrested Hay on charges of being drunk in public. In the video, Hay keeps questioning his arrest, puzzled because he was inside his apartment, not in public.

The sheriff's own investigation indicates Hay had reason for confusion. A disciplinary letter to Deputy Book states: "At no time during your contact with Michael H. was he in 'public,' within the meaning of the statute. Therefore your arrest of Michael H. was without legal authority."

On the tape Hay jokes with a nurse who interviews him in the intake area. The nurse is heard telling him: "They like to hurt people around here," though it's not clear whether she is referring to deputies or other inmates.

Deputy Eubanks stands near her prisoner, at times talking to an unidentified male deputy. That officer turns his back to Hay and appears to make a shadow-boxing motion - a gesture expert witness Twomey said suggests that "Mr. Hay's immediate future is going to involve some sort of force."

Eubanks walks Hay to the jail's pat-down area. There he is searched by Deputy Ramos, who is wearing a Santa Claus hat.

Ramos told internal affairs investigators that Hay was intoxicated and not following directions, "so Deputy (Charles) Meeks and I proceeded to place him in twist-lock control holds." On the tape, the deputies twist both of Hay's arms behind his back.

Ramos said he heard a "popping sound," as he twisted Hay's right arm. He later told investigators he hears the sound in 60 to 70 percent of those he puts in a twist lock, but this pop was "louder."

Twomey, however, said he'd never heard such a sound in his three decades with the department.

He also wrote that the "twist lock" is a control move properly used on one arm to make someone turn in response to pain, allowing an officer to regain control. But he said he had never witnessed two twist locks being used - a maneuver the lawsuit alleges is "torture."

Hay was released later that morning, with no charges filed.

He filed an excessive force claim with the Sheriff's Department within a month. Although department policy is to start an internal affairs investigation and mete out any punishment within 90 days, the Hay case was not resolved for more than a year.

In the end, Eubanks was reprimanded for calling Book on her cell phone nine minutes after being interviewed by internal affairs. And Ramos and Deputy Tom McCue were counseled for failing to report the "popping" sound, according to the sheriff's report on the investigation.

Two years later, Jafar Afshar sat in the same seat that Hay had occupied, being interviewed by another nurse in the intake area of the jail.

After leaving the Tunel 21 nightclub in Old Sacramento, Afshar was arrested early that June morning for alleged public intoxication by two Sacramento police officers.

Afshar, then 37, served four years in the Marines, including active duty during Operation Desert Storm, according to Gorski, his lawyer. "If he had wanted to fight the deputies, they would have had their hands full," Gorski said.

In the jail video - which, unlike Hay's, has no sound - Afshar seems relaxed and the jail staff appears comfortable around him, Twomey stated in his declaration. "It is obvious that at no time did (Afshar) pose a threat requiring that he be taken down to the floor."

But Deputy Brett Spaid testified, in a court deposition filed by Gorski, that Afshar was "combative," mumbled something about Columbine and threatened to kill Spaid's family. Spaid said he did not take the threats seriously.

On the tape, Afshar is shown obeying Spaid's order to remove his shoes. Suddenly, Spaid grabs Afshar by the collar, Afshar's body shoots up and back and flips onto the hard floor.

The fall, Twomey said, caused Afshar "to smash his head, (as deputies) spun him onto his stomach and twisted both of his arms toward his shoulders."

On a scale of one to 10 for hardness, Twomey described the jail floor as a 10 and "not effective as a safety measure as it is a very hard material."

Afshar, who acknowledged in his deposition that he doesn't recall much from that night, testified that he heard someone say, "Where is your God now?" before he was knocked to the floor.

After deputies rushed Afshar away to the hospital, the video shows a pool of blood the size of a serving platter on the jail floor. He was released the next morning, all charges dropped. A year later, he filed his lawsuit.

A month after Afshar's encounter with the deputies, Mihaita Constantin also found himself in the Sacramento County jail. Constantin, then a 33-year-old immigrant from Romania, was arrested July 14, 2003, for drunk driving. His blood alcohol was more than triple the legal limit.

The video clip shows Constantin standing by the door in the jail's "sobering tank." Other inmates are seated around the perimeter of the cell.

In Deputy Timothy Pai's report of the incident, he said a deputy identified only as "Deputy Mason," badge no. 461, told Constantin to remain seated in the cell, to which Constantin said, "No." According to this account, when Constantin refused to sit a second time, he was grabbed by the shirt and placed on the floor.

Within seconds, the video shows, four more deputies rush into the cell as Constantin writhes and struggles on the floor. Other guards follow, apparently directing other inmates not to watch.

Noting that the deputies arrived within seconds, Twomey said: "It is glaringly apparent these other deputies were stacked by the door to enter the tank quickly, making it certain they knew they were going to get physically involved, which shows premeditation."

In the fracas, Constantin sustained a broken hand, fractured nose and his face was left swollen and bruised. Taken to an isolation cell, he is seen in another video handcuffed to a floor grate, bleeding and breathing hard.

Deputies' reports stated that Constantin had punched one deputy and bit another, who then hit the inmate twice in the right eye to release the bite. The deputies said they were not injured and required no medical treatment.

Constantin, who spent 48 hours in jail, was charged with two counts of battery on an officer and resisting arrest. One battery count was dismissed the day before his trial in April 2004, at which time a judge acquitted him of the rest. He got three years' probation for driving drunk.

On June 29, 2004, Constantin filed his own federal civil rights lawsuit against the Sheriff's Department. But last May 14, Placer County deputies found his body in a car crashed on a mountain slope near Blue Canyon. The coroner ruled his death a suicide. His widow has returned to Europe but is pursuing the lawsuit.

In the Afshar suit, attorneys for the Sheriff's Department have filed a motion asking U. S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton to reach a summary judgment in their favor. Their motion argues that the department has written policies on appropriate use of force - and points out that Afshar's own recollections of the incident are vague.

On Nov. 7, Karlton is scheduled to consider that motion, along with a counter motion by Afshar's attorneys asking for a summary judgment in his favor. The jail videotapes and other documents were filed in support of that counter motion.

Afshar's case currently is scheduled for trial in May in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and requests a court order prohibiting "further excessive force" at the jail and monitoring by outside consultants.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIDEOS
Quicktime video player
Jafar Afshar http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/video/afshar_final.mov

Michael P. Hay http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/video/hay_final.mov

Mihaita Constantin http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/video/constantin_final.mov

RealPlayer

Jafar Afsharhttp://www.sacbee.com/static/richmedia/mov/jail/afshar_h.ram

Michael P. Hay http://www.sacbee.com/static/richmedia/mov/jail/hay_h.ram

Mihaita Constantin http://www.sacbee.com/static/richmedia/mov/jail/constantin_h.ram


COURT PAPERS
Expert declaration on use of force - Declaration of Timothy Twomey, expert witness in the case of Jafar Afshar, filed Oct. 24. [PDF]
http://www.sacbee.com/static/richmedia/pdf/1030afshar2.pdf


Amended lawsuit against sheriff's department - Suit filed Oct. 24 by attorneys Gary W. Gorski and Daniel M. Karalash with "Demand for a Jury Trial" in the case of Jafar Afshar. [PDF]

http://www.sacbee.com/static/richmedia/pdf/1030afshar1.pdf


Facts in favor of sheriff's department - Attorneys for the Sheriff's Department on Sept. 26 asked the court for a summary judgment in the department's favor in the case of Jafar Afshar. [PDF]
http://www.sacbee.com/static/richmedia/pdf/1030afshar3.pdf


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A LOOK AT THE CASES
Three alleged instances of abuse by deputies at the Sacramento County jail, with images from court documents:

Jafar Afshar
Age: 37
Booking charges: public intoxication
Injury: split scalp
Internal investigation: none
Deputy involved: Brett Spaid

Michael P. Hay
Age: 21
Booking charges: public intoxication
Injury: broken arm
Internal investigation: Conducted
Deputies involved: Rebecca Eubanks - reprimand for talking about internal affairs investigation, plus proposed 40-hour suspension without pay; Robert Book - proposed 20-hour suspension for arresting Hay in his apartment on charges of public intoxication; Santos Ramos - counseling for not reporting injury; Tom McCue - counseling for not reporting injury

Mihaita Constantin
Age: 33
Booking charges: driving under the influence
Injury: fractured nose and hand, contusion to eye and lip, various cuts
Internal investigation: none
Deputies involved: Timothy Pai; five others identified by last name, badge number: Mason, 461; Parker, 1377; Morck, 1318, and De la Cruz, 1034

About the writer:
The Bee's Dorothy Korber can be reached at (916) 321-1061 or dkorber@sacbee.com and Christina Jewett can be reached at (916) 321-1201 or cjewett@sacbee.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Art Eatman]

As usual, the operative word is "some" or "few", as with any sort of group.

One thing that might be regarded as a civic duty is to keep an ear out for rumors of this sort of behavior, in an effort to follow up and try to ensure it doesn't' either become reality or become worse.

Part of "Who will watch the watchers?"

Art

[beerslurpy]

One thing that might be regarded as a civic duty is to keep an ear out for rumors of this sort of behavior, in an effort to follow up and try to ensure it doesn't' either become reality or become worse.

Couldnt agree more.

Sometimes the feds have to bring in a flashlight to make the cochroaches scatter. I'm all for home rule, but sometimes the locals are a bunch of no-good bastards. It sure beats having a violent uprising.

Hopefully the cops who have grown accustomed to cracking skulls as a debate tactic will get to do the perp walk.

[45acpSHOOTER]

Hopefully the cops who have grown accustomed to cracking skulls as a debate tactic will get to do the perp walk.

Wishful thinking, but it will never happen.

[walking arsenal]

These thread types are getting old, fast.

That said, I'm seeing a trend at the school i'm attending. It seems that a lot of young guys are joining to become cops so they can "whup ghansta".

That is, they want a fight, with whatever law breaker they get their hands on.

Sad, when did cops stop wanting to help people and be the good friendly guys of the community.

[Beethoven]

As usual, the operative word is "some" or "few", as with any sort of group.

Obviously.

The problem is, when one is dealing with LEO's, one has no way of knowing if he is good or bad. Hence the need to have a healthy level of suspicion.


"Who will watch the watchers?"




The People.

[beerslurpy]

Wishful thinking, but it will never happen.

When the system covers up abuses instead of correcting them, the corrective action in the end is always a lot more painful for everyone.

[Beethoven]

These thread types are getting old, fast.



I agree.

It would be much nicer if incidents like this simply did not happen, and if ALL (as in 100%) cops were good, decent and honest.

Until then, you are going to have to not click on threads like this if you don't want to be exposed to reality. ;)

[Waitone]

When LE fails to police itself the responsibility falls on outsiders. Piked heads is remarkably effective in defining priorities and focusing attention. I don't paint with broad brushes but I do demand that legal goons be dealt with. :mad:

[Standing Wolf]

It seems that a lot of young guys are joining to become cops so they can "whup ghansta".

It's not a recent development. I suspect bullies have been joining law enforcement agencies as long as there've been law enforcement agencies.

[walking arsenal]

Well, thats good to know, i thought it was a recent thing.

[R.H. Lee]

Accountability, accountability, and accountability. If we can get our shorts in a wedgie over Abu Graib, we can certainly break up this thugfest and prosecute the offenders.

[jashobeam]

The reason these threads almost always devolve into an "us vs. them" polarization is, IN MY OPINION, the result of some (not all) LEO THR members becoming overly defensive and refusing to say simply, "What THOSE cops did is wrong."

Somehow it seems that certain cops are afraid that admitting wrong doing on the part of ANY LEO is to implicate ALL of LE; and that refusing to acknowledge a fact makes it nonexistent.

Let me say that the exact opposite is true. Admitting a wrongdoing displays the integrity that all citizens are hoping to find in a police officer.

Don't play the role of Kayne West (during/after Katrina). Instead of speaking out against the wrong being done by certain people who were, incidentally, black, he spoke out against those who spoke out against their wrongdoing. Somehow, in Mr. West's way of thinking, pointing fingers at a few guilty individuals was to villainize their whole race. By ignoring or minimizing the lawlessness of certain individuals and CHOOSING to make it a racial issue, HE elevated the criminal activities committed by a few and ascribed them to the entire group and, in so doing, willingly made himself an equal to those committing the crimes and condoned their behavior.

I find no comfort in the words of those who defend corrupt police behavior by reprimanding those who wish to discuss it.

[patrol120]

I did not watch the vidoes, and I will not. I will say that bad things are done by cops on boths sides of the grey walls. It is unfortunate, but it does happen. Any cop who defends those who oppress those they serve should no longer be in a position to do so. The Thin Blue Line is exactly as it sounds, THIN. When that line is crossed those who do so should be dealt with swiftly and mericlessly. These few men, and women, give those who still have an imense amount of pride in what we do a bad name.

It's not a recent development. I suspect bullies have been joining law enforcement agencies as long as there've been law enforcement agencies.

I dont necessarily believe that a wish to "whup gangstas" is the sign of a bully. I think it has much more to do with an extreme distaste for bullies. Myself, I do not look for fights to get into, but I will admit that I see no wrong in feeling good about a righteous fracas with a bad person. That is why we are out there, so those who do not can sleep easily at night.

This being said, I do see bullies get into this lone of work. I also see these same people exit quickly. They simply cannot handle the amount of accountability we have.

[walking arsenal]

(shrugs) What those cops did was wrong.

But if you substitute the word "cop" for any other proffesion, like doctor or fireman, plumber, mechanic, etc. does it make a difference?

[armedandsafe]

"Under the color of law" is the operative term, here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=388

When all else fails:
http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

Pops

[sam59]

I did not watch the video's due to my computer at work not allowing it. But I would imagine they went to far and they should be dealt with. With that said, I think if many of you were in the profession you would have a far different outlook, better yet I can say with confidence you would have a different outlook. Having a friend/brother/sister etc... thats in the profession doesnt count, it's not the same as walking the walk and dealing with the scum day in day out. I can already predict the responses, lets see if I am correct.

[The_Antibubba]

walking arsenal,

Any professional that has another person's life entirely dependent up him needs to be held to a higher standard. My plumber cannot lock me in a cell, bind me, beat me with a baton, and expect to get away with it. Why should a police officer?

And the reason these threads devolve into "Us versus Them" is because the police them selves see themselves as an "Us" and everyone else as a "Them". The finest private citizen is still going to be less trusted than a corrupt cop.

The blue line may be thin, but it is stronger than Kevlar.

[jashobeam]

(shrugs) What those cops did was wrong.

But if you substitute the word "cop" for any other proffesion, like doctor or fireman, plumber, mechanic, etc. does it make a difference?
No, it makes no difference. In fact, if I understand your point correctly, you are right; they are simply PEOPLE who did wrong. I guess that's where we err and offend honest members of law enforcement (or any group for the matter). In the process of blaming individuals, we often label them according to the group within which they reside, and other members of the group respond by defending the group as a whole. Unfortunately, these men are categorized according to their profession as police officers. Hopefully, the very noble profession of the police officer will not be categorized according to the actions of these men. Which is why it is of extreme importance for other LEO's to speak out against brutal and corrupt police activity.

BTW, Mr. Walking Arsenal, my original post was not written against you. In fact, after posting it I starting thinking that I had acted in haste. I think that perhaps I was over-sensitive or defensive of my own view and consequently launched a pre-emptive strike. I fear I may have cast the first divisive stone. I apologize if I antagonized anyone or aggravated an otherwise friendly discussion. Hopefully, my words did not draw, or catalyze the drawing of, the dividing line for which I prematurely blamed others.

[sam59]

I dont think the police feel there is an "US Vs Them" mentality at all when talking about the general public. Thats far to broad a statement and as Jashobeam said, your lumping them together. Now, if your talking about "Police Vs. Drug dealers/gang members and all the other POS's running around that are nothing but leaches on society", then you would be correct, it is "US Vs Them".

[walking arsenal]

And the reason these threads devolve into "Us versus Them" is because the police them selves see themselves as an "Us" and everyone else as a "Them".


And the other way around as well. Wonder who was first.

Jashobeam, no offense taken at all, thats why we call these things discussion boards and not duelling boards. ;)

[Didorian]

Being suspicious is all well and good..... But suspicion does you no good when somthing bad happens.:banghead: In the end YOU will be seen as the bad guy until someone else proves them wrong, and that can take years if ever.:fire:

All you can really do, is know in your heart that you are in the right in defending yourself, your property and your pride. Even if everyone else says that you are wrong.

And it is true, anyone with the power to totally destroy your life should NEVER be trusted completly.:mad:

[Mad Man]

(shrugs) What those cops did was wrong.

But if you substitute the word "cop" for any other proffesion, like doctor or fireman, plumber, mechanic, etc. does it make a difference?

If you defy or assault a police officer, is it any different than doing so to a doctor, fireman, plumber, mechanic, etc? Are the relevant statues and sentences different?

Why or why not?


And speaking of firemen, why are they not covered by the "acting in a illegal manner" clause of Colorado Revised Statutes (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/HTML/colorado_revised_statutes.htm) 18-8-104(2)?


18-8-104. Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer.

(1) (a) A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the prevention, control, or abatement of fire by a firefighter, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of medical treatment or emergency assistance by an emergency medical service provider or rescue specialist, acting under color of his or her official authority; or knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of emergency care or emergency assistance by a volunteer, acting in good faith to render such care or assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident.

(b) To assure that animals used in law enforcement or fire prevention activities are protected from harm, a person commits obstructing a peace officer or firefighter when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, he or she knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders any such animal.

(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, if he was acting under color of his official authority as defined in section 18-8-103 (2).

(3) Repealed.

(4) Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer is a class 2 misdemeanor.

(5) For purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) "Emergency medical service provider" means a member of a public or private emergency medical service agency, whether that person is a volunteer or receives compensation for services rendered as such emergency medical service provider.

(b) "Rescue specialist" means a member of a public or private rescue agency, whether that person is a volunteer or receives compensation for services rendered as such rescue specialist.


(emphasis added)

Do other states have similar "acting in an illegal manner" provisions?

[jashobeam]

it's not the same as walking the walk and dealing with the scum day in day out. I can already predict the responses, lets see if I am correct.
I am not sure which responses you are anticipating but I would like to make a point based upon what you stated in the above quote.

By working with scum day in and day out, do you start to see all citizens as scum, or at least believe that each citizen is capable of acting like scum? Are you wary of finding yourself in a vulnerable position with a potentially dangerous citizen?

Then how can you blame me, after hearing story after story about corrupt and/or abusive cops, for fearing finding myself in the hands of a police officer, since I have no way of knowing which of them is, or is at least capable of being, corrupt and/or abusive?

Which type of law breaking citizen do you consider to be scum?

walking the walk
I have no problem with cops who are (continuous tense) walking the walk. Are you attempting to make allowances for cops who WERE walking the walk but finally snapped when they came into contact with one too many scums?

If I were capable of understanding a cop's passive-aggressive misplacement of anger, are you insinuating that I should then find such actions acceptable? It seems we hear similar arguments from impoverished criminals who refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions but instead insist on blaming absolutely everyone and everything for their behavior.

What if this "scum" was at one time an upstanding citizen who, also, WAS a continuous walker of the walk but snapped in his turn as a result of being subjected to some last straw of personal injustice and as a result committed the crime that labeled him "scum"? Will you make allowances for him, or will you turn a blind eye to his mistreatment?

Now if this person somehow got the upper hand against a cop and brutalized him, do you think I would defend his actions or make excuses or allowances? No. Whether or not a person, ANY PERSON, is typically good and law abiding is irrelevant; no excuse should be substituted for the punishment deserved for the commission of a violent or brutal crime.

[Steam dragon]

I dont think the police feel there is an "US Vs Them" mentality at all when talking about the general public. Thats far to broad a statement and as Jashobeam said, your lumping them together. Now, if your talking about "Police Vs. Drug dealers/gang members and all the other POS's running around that are nothing but leaches on society", then you would be correct, it is "US Vs Them".

Ya Think?

When was the last time you saw a cop quoted in a news story saying that another member of his or her department made a bad shoot?

Tell me how the thin blue line protects one of their own when that one goes after a bad cop. Any bad cop.

Serpico is a true story.

It isn't called whack and stack for nothing...


I have been at the scene of 2 police whacks.
both times the cops claimed "fear for their life" one? an amputee couldn't show both his hands.

number two? "He tried to run me over with his car" while said officer was at 90 degrees to the only possible path the car could have traveled. Oh, and the car was on jack stands, with no tires mounted.

The first one, I am shamed to say, I refused to be a witness.

The second caused me to abruptly move to a new state after swearing a affidavit.

I was warned by another cop, that I had made the list for "danger to cop."
But even he wouldn't do anything to stop another whack.
Both incedents were ruled "justified", like that's a surprise.

Funny that so many people in L A, PRK run from the cops, isn't it?
They know they can't escape.
So why run?
They want to get near a crowd, with LOTS of media, so they won't be killed, by a bunch of adrnaline junkies, higher than a speed freak trying pcp.

You don't fit that mould?
GREAT.
Available evidence is that you are a minority in your profession.

My father was a cop in Chicago. He quit in 1984. said it had gotten too corrupt even for him. He doubled his income by shaking down potheads and hookers. I haven't spoken his name since told me how he paid for my first year of college. He also told me that day, not to ever join a force.

Oh. by the way.

A cop on duty has NO rights.
He gives them up to take the power and authority of an agent of the State or other government entity.
It is arguable that he regains his rights, when he goes home at night.
But then, is he not "on duty" 24/7?
---
When a person is whacked , the leo in question has no worries, because he will only be investigated by his brother leos.

Or, should I say, "Comrads."

Your "few" have driven the "us v. them" mentality into the psyche of the them.
Which, of course, is all non leo.

To you good cops, I say, this is YOUR fault. you cannot have been on a force, any force more than a month before witnessing an illeagal act by another officer under color of law. And YOU did nothing.

[Jim March]

Well first, this is the Sacramento Sheriff's Department we're talking about.

The whole department has good reason to suspect that the agency is corrupt from the top down:

http://www.equalccw.com/colafrancescopapers.pdf

Second, the staff are fully aware that the deputy who took the above police report spent over 10 years in "Siberia".

"Siberia" is that department's slang for the secondary jail facility out in the boonies - Rio Cosumnes:

http://www.sacsheriff.com/organization/court_&_correctional_services/RCCC/index.cfm

It's where they stick deputies "gone bad", either failures as street cops or people politically on the "outs" with the brass. I'd be very interested to learn if the abuses in the first post above came from there because it's where that agency puts their real screwballs...basically EVERYBODY in there on both sides of the bars is in a "jail", because of this long tradition of stashing screwups with badges in there.

Third:

I am aware of an even more serious set of abuse charges that...are just mind-blowing, much worse than the material in the first post above, and are confidential for the moment. Sorry I can't give details but I'm quite serious. The nature of the issue suggests that the situation at the main jail isn't much better than at "Siberia".

Upshot: this isn't a case of a few rogue deputies - the whole department is fundamentally ill from the top down and I would NEVER trust any member of this department for help nor call on them in any emergency.

[45acpSHOOTER]

I dont necessarily believe that a wish to "whup gangstas" is the sign of a bully.


I dont think the police feel there is an "US Vs Them" mentality at all when talking about the general public. Thats far to broad a statement and as Jashobeam said, your lumping them together. Now, if your talking about "Police Vs. Drug dealers/gang members and all the other POS's running around that are nothing but leaches on society", then you would be correct, it is "US Vs Them".

Who decides who is a gansta, who is a drug dealer/gang members? Lots of things can be used to label anyone a gansta/drug dealer/gang member.

The fact remains that SOME in LE have a us v them attitude. SOME in LE are bad apples. This is a fact, and just like SOME of society are bad apples, it stands to reason that Some Cops are bad. What bothers me more than bad cops, is the silence from Good Cops when the bad ones get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

[Jim March]

"Some bad ones", yeah, except some entire agencies are rotten from the top down. Even if some in there are acting honestly (and in some cases it's so bad they're literally in the minority) the fact that they're willing to stay in that atmosphere makes them suspect.

The Portland OR PD is another one like this...more weird stories come out of that one agency than any other their size.

[SpookyPistolero]

I hesitate to make any comment on this type of thread, and probably should trust that. So to make a stupid move, I will say that I have previously made comments in other threads involving police corruption, etc. that because of the actions of a few of the police (if indeed it is only a few), I cannot trust the rest. From this I received comments about how 'interesting' my logic was, like my prejudice was just a gross, uneducated generalization based on one or two incidents. It was made to seem as if I was using the same logic as if, for example, I were robbed by an austrailian and made the crazy statement that all austrailians are unholy brigands. But guess what the difference between a police officer and an austrailian is? One has been given massive power and authority over me. One has a huge machine behind him, designed to protect him, while finding every way to keep me under their thumb (if they choose to do so) as long as possible. One lives in a system with an internal checks-and-balances function akin to a man looking himself in the mirror to decide if he is right in his own way.

As Americans or patriots or whatever you want to call it, we say we're supposed to question authority, that we shouldn't let government get too much power, keep things in check. It's the basis for our government. It keeps tyrants from gaining footholds too rapidly. But as soon as you turn those innately distrustful eyes towards law enforcement in general, you're a filthy cop basher, a knee-jerking ingrate with an authority problem.

Too many 'isolated incidents' have occurred for anyone to reasonably say that it just can't happen. It has. Are the vast majority of police good people? Doing their job to the best of their ability? Absolutely I believe they are. They are people working a job that must often be so hard I can't imagine it. For lots of reasons I haven't even considered. But there are so, so many ways based on the latitude and power they have for some to abuse their position that only a fool would blindly trust them. Reverse the tables. Most cops probably think most people are good, honest people who wouldn't try to harm them. But would any cop with half a brain go up to a traffic stop with complete trust of the individual behind the wheel?

As far as an 'us vs. them' mentality, I would say a large potential problem in that arena is for individual officers to eventually see themselves as benevolent protectors of us sheeple, us second class citizens. It's the mentality I hear everytime I see a chief of police on TV giving an announcement.

My qualm is that my protection and safety are my responsibility. I expect to be able to go about my day and not be subject to the whim of anyone, police or otherwise, if I haven't done anything unlawful. I expect to go my own way and not be messed about with if I've commited no wrong. I understand they have a job to weed through the average citizens to find the goblins. Like I said, hard job to attempt, I wouldn't want it. It's necessary to keep the bad elements in check. I get it.

But the structure exists such that the moral fortitude of the department will be set by that of the 'higher ups'. If those in charge condone any kind of abuses, then the ones below can get away with what they want. And the 'good ones', as we have seen, often bite their tongues. Those at the head of the department aren't pure demigods, they're fallable human beings.

That is my peace and I am glad, for better or worse, to get it off my chest. It will almost certainly go largely unseen, though, since I imagine the bulk of people on another side of the river will just overlook this thread as another anti-cop bellow of hot air.

[patrol120]

Steamdragon, your post is so entirely inflammatory, I will not delve into the details, except for one point.

A cop on duty has NO rights.
He gives them up to take the power and authority of an agent of the State or other government entity.
It is arguable that he regains his rights, when he goes home at night.
But then, is he not "on duty" 24/7?

This is completely wrong. We have the right to defend ourselves and others. We have the same rights any other civilian does, because that is what we are, civilians.

Above all else, we have the same right to due process as anyone else. If we are accused of wrongdoing, we have the right to counter our accusers, and be heard. Until that right is fulfilled, I do not pass judgement on something that happened 1000 miles away, and neither should you.

[MechAg94]

When was the last time you saw a cop quoted in a news story saying that another member of his or her department made a bad shoot?
I hate to take one piece of someone's post, but this is a foolish thing to ask. If you had worked alongside someone for 5 years or more, would you say that? No. You would say he is under investigation or some such if you said anything at all.

I think part of the problem here is the posters who are highly suspicious of LEO's will never be satisfied unless all the LEO's on this board rant and rave and condemn every questionable act by an LEO that hits the news.

I don't want to downplay the bad acts of these Sacramento cops, but some of you want to condemn ALL cops to hard labor in prison every time one of them does something bad. It helps to not sensationalize things by refering to all LEO's everywhere when you are really talking about a few LEO's in Sacramento. I begin to think that some of you work for tabloid newspapers on the side. Surely, some of you are not doing this deliberately to bait the LEO's on this board. :confused:

[sam59]

Well I received a few answers that I expected. Usually the same theme. One time I saw this cop do this that and the other, or my uncle/brother/3rd cousins mother had a cop beat her so bad her uterus fell out etc... I do not condone any illegal activity by police, that is not and has not been my point. All that seems to be mentioned by a select few are the bad contacts they had with the police or the "stories" they heard. It's funny how the good contacts never get mentioned. It's a no win situation, everyone needs a bad guy. The cops get the ???? and the fireman get the hugs.

Ill repeat, try doing the job and I gurantee your outlook will change.

Kudo's to Spookey he has made the most sense so far with a balanced look at the situation.

[sam59]

You hit the nail on the head, good post.

[albanian]

One thing I notice about debates like this is, because they are so complex, there are more than one right answer. There may be shades of grey and different sides to the story. It is easy to just say that cops just want to crack some skulls or to say that the preps had it comming but both are wrong and both are probably right.

If the prep was a life long dirt bag that never did a thing for anyone but himself and was a drain on the community, I have no problem with someone knocking him around a little. If the cop was just a bully and he enjoyed abusing his power, I have no problem with throwing the book at him.

The problem is, you are not going to find a lot of willing to do what LEOs have to do for what they get paid. My friend is a cop and he makes decent money but he has a degree and has to deal with the human trash that we wish we never have to face. Because of him, I can see both sides of the story. There are some people that I really wouldn't mind if they were removed from the earth. I just don't know if I want cops deciding who is guilty and who isn't.

It is very complex so all I will say is, most cops are worthless but at least 20-30% of them are okay. They are sort of like garbage men, we have to pay them to do the job we don't want to do. If I had to put up with what they put up with, I would resort to violence all the time. I am in favor of affrimitive action on this one. The more diverse the police force is, the better for everyone.

[M-Rex]

As usual, the operative word is "some" or "few", as with any sort of group.

One thing that might be regarded as a civic duty is to keep an ear out for rumors of this sort of behavior, in an effort to follow up and try to ensure it doesn't' either become reality or become worse.

Part of "Who will watch the watchers?"

Art


Also, the Sacramento Bee is a very left leaning paper. Expect any story dealing with law enforcement to be heavily slanted and spun.

[M-Rex]

Edited.

Nevermind. Three guesses how this thread will end up.:rolleyes:

[spartacus2002]

But if you substitute the word "cop" for any other proffesion, like doctor or fireman, plumber, mechanic, etc. does it make a difference?

Oh yes there is a tremendous difference. You see, the "cops" have a legal monopoly on the use of force to enforce laws. They are power, plain and simple. And when they misuse that power, they need to get hammered to the max, lest they grow emboldened to misuse it further.

[CAS700850]

Forget it. I had just written a lengthy response about cops I have prosecuted, or seen prosecuted, for criminal acts. You know what? It means nothing. For, just as I say bad cops are an exception, someone will surely point to the criminal convictions of cops as an exception.

The simple fact of the matter is thatthere are people on this board who have no trust in LEO's. I know from reading other threads that all prosecutors are just politically motivated, out for convictions at all costs, and only do the right thing when it serves their own purposes. Never mind that I've been a prosecutor for 11 years as of November 14th. I carry a badge. I must be dirty, cover up crimes committed by cops, and help cops violate the rights of the people.

Why is it impossible for people to believe that not all LEO's are dirty, self-serving garbage?

[buzz_knox]

Why is it impossible for people to believe that not all LEO's are dirty, self-serving garbage?

For the same reason it's impossible to believe lawyers, doctors, etc., aren't dirty self-serving garbage: the bad ones make the news and the good ones don't like to bad mouth the others. The bar is a prime example. Slime bag lawyers are fairly rare, but they make the news because the rest of us don't like to hunt our own. We don't want to file complaints with the bar, push for disbarment, etc. There's an attorney here who files baseless claims to get the initial fee, and steals from his clients and partners yet still has his license. The bar suspended his license, but suspended the suspension when he got an accountant to handle the money. Great for him, but terrible for the practice of law.

Similarly, when people see cops do something wrong yet nothing happens (either because nothing actually happens or what is perceived as the punishment the rest of the world would receive), respect and trust is lost.

[Waitone]

Buzz is pretty much right on target. Professionals want to regulate themselves. . . . . then don't. Combined with negative coverage of malefactors with the absence of coverage of professional groups policing their own and you get just exactly what we see on this thread and others.

I'm a professional also. A professional peddler. I'm already consider scum in some worlds but I don't have an organization claiming to police me and those like me.

A word to the sufficient is wise. It is not a good idea in today's world to claim the right to regulate a professional organization and then fail to do so.

[M-Rex]

Forget it. I had just written a lengthy response about cops I have prosecuted, or seen prosecuted, for criminal acts. You know what? It means nothing. For, just as I say bad cops are an exception, someone will surely point to the criminal convictions of cops as an exception.

The simple fact of the matter is thatthere are people on this board who have no trust in LEO's. I know from reading other threads that all prosecutors are just politically motivated, out for convictions at all costs, and only do the right thing when it serves their own purposes. Never mind that I've been a prosecutor for 11 years as of November 14th. I carry a badge. I must be dirty, cover up crimes committed by cops, and help cops violate the rights of the people.

Why is it impossible for people to believe that not all LEO's are dirty, self-serving garbage?

+1 CAS

I'm in the same canoe, just on another paddle.

[cropcirclewalker]

There must be a high percentage of LEOs present on this forum. I think that is beneficial.

Normally, in the real world, if your brother is a cop, or your neighbor, or somebody in your circle, as it were, you have more of a feeling of comfort around cops. (Maybe not :neener: )

I only know the locals in the little town 7 miles away and a few (2) of the 4 deputy sheriffs for my county. I know no state troopers.

All of them I know are decent people. I guess one could say that 100 percent of the sample of the cops I know (based on my knowledge) are decent law abiding folks.

I hear some on this forum (maybe most) say that not all cops are good. Even the LEOs will agree. If they don't they're fools.

Now to the bashing, the awful bashing.

I yam sure that most bgs that frequent this forum (if there are any) will not cop bash. They know they done wrong and therefore have whatever they get coming to them. The bashers are guys like me who have been wrongfully treated (at least in our own minds). Other gunnies, such as myself can see the erosion of our rights as codified in the BoR and see the cops as the agents (the enforcers) of the politicians who are eroding those rights.

I like to visualize them (the enforcers) as those funny looking guys in the white plastic suits and the big plastic helmets with sun glass eyes that run around in the Star Wars movies. Their identities are hidden from us. They are not the cops we know, socialize with, live next to or whatever.

So here's an analogy.......

You take 99 Corn snakes (beneficial, harmless, the good cops) and 1 Coral snake (evil, deadly and quick, the one bad cop), put them in a basket. They both look alike except one is red, black, yellow and the other is red, yellow, black or something like that. Now you put on a blindfold and reach into the basket to pick one of them out.

Does anybody wanna try? Hah, not good enough odds? This analogy works both ways; for the citizen OR the cops.

There is a slight difference in my analogy and your basic traffic stop.

1) Sometimes the citizen, driver, doesn't get the choice. He is just the one picked out for dwp, dwb, low riding rear springs, wrong color car, soberiety check, insurance check, whatever. Yes the leo apologist can say, "Don't speed and you won't get stopped.", but the ordinary driver, often is a victim of chance.

Thus the apprehension, fear, call it what you like. The cop walking up to your window COULD be the Coral Snake and there is nothing you can do about it.

2) The LEO does get to make that choice. Granted, the chief can shout, "Stop that car." and short of desertion, like in NO, you gotta do it, except, no, you don't gotta do it. You could quit.

Other than quitting, the cop can attempt to improve his odds by removing his blindfold (as an agent of the state, he gets to) and maybe kicking the lid off the basket so that he can shine his flashlight in and make a wiser choice.

So there is the rub.

The driver don't get a choice. He has to hope that the cop stopping him is a Corn Snake and it probably is. It's perhaps just that the driver doesnt like the top getting kicked off his basket and a light shined in his face.

[jashobeam]

Sam59 said:
Ill repeat, try doing the job and I gurantee your outlook will change.
Sir, what exactly do you mean by this statement? Are you implying that my idea of what is right and what is wrong will change? Do you espouse situation ethics? You said something similar in your first post to which I replied. Why did you not respond to at least clarify or disagree or explain that I misinterpreted your assertion?

Let me take this time to say that I find it amazing that most cops are able to routinely exhibit the restraint that it requires to professionally handle certain types of criminals. I am somewhat ashamed to confess that there are certain types of criminals that a part of me would enjoy seeing mistreated if not outright tortured. But LE are supposed to enforce the Law, and hopefully they have faith in the law they uphold and believe that the law itself is sufficient to punish those who break it.

albanian said:
Because of him, I can see both sides of the story.
Mr. Albanian, do you also espouse situation ethics? It appears you incorrectly assume that there are two sides to every story; that is to say that both parties are always partly in the right and partly in the wrong. This is false. Sometimes there is a victim and then there is a perpetrator. Do you see both sides of a rape story? A lot of cops have been through and seen some awful things, but according to a lot of rapists and child molestors, so have they. Surely you do not intend to imply that seeing both sides means to approve of the actions of both sides.

Now, if Mr. Albanian and Mr. Sam59 are saying that they can see cause for both sides of the "Us vs. Them" mentality, let me also say that so can I. But regardless of which side of that equation one lies, the law should be the law and right and wrong should remain as such. I work in retail. I can understand when a customer gets irritated and becomes rude. I can also understand why an employee would be annoyed by this behavior and respond with an attitude or a smart-ass comment. Though I understand both sides, I don't agree with either way of handling the situation. Someone like me, who has been working with customers for many years, is LESS likely than a newer employee to snap at a customer because I have become desensitized to it and no longer take it personally, and I have a better understanding of the job I am paid to do. Hopefully, cops who have for many years dealt with "scum" should be less likely to snap and retaliate than newer ones.

LASTLY: There are a good number of posts on this thread that definitely DO NOT say that ALL cops are bad. Those of you who only reference the posts that polarize, make all opposing views into a single straw man argument and contribute and lend credibility to the "Us vs. Them" polarization while ignoring those of us who strive to maintain a meaningful discussion. I have told stories on other threads of good interactions I have had with LE. I myself was arrested for DUI and received proper treatment.

If I have misunderstood the statements I quoted from Mr. Sam59 and Mr. Albanian, I apologize and request clarification. Please respond in some way. Sam59, you have twice tossed that statement out there and I have twice replied. If I am in error regarding your words, please do me the honor of telling me so.

[CAS700850]

Okay, let me say it like this. THere are cops who are as much scumbags as the criminals that we expect them to protect us from. No big surprise for anyone here. I've prosecuted some of them. MOst of the good cops I know have nothiong good to say about these guys, and have congratulated me on prosecuting them. The "blue wall of silence" may exist, but when you've got a cop who is doing drugs, ripping off dealers, shaking down dealers, and in one case, having sex with a 14 year old girl, not even the "blue wall of silence" is going to protect them.

Now, I also know that, on many occassions, people on this board have complained about overly aggressive police actions. Coffee can mean anything? Are there cops who are too aggresive in pursuing drugs, DUI's etc.? Well, that depends on your perspective. A member of MADD will award the over-zealous cop pursuing DUI's, while some here would see his tactics as being in violation of the individual's rights. Is the cop a bad cop because he pushes the envelope in pursuit of his goal of catching drugs dealers? Again, the answer will depend on the perspective of the person looking at the actions. A libertarian will view any infringment of the suspects rights as being too much. Yet, some of the community groups around here will complain if the cop respects the dealer's rights.

And, what about the cop, a friend of my father's, who once told me that when I got to be old enough, and living on my own, I should get a gun, learn to use it, and protect myself? I'm sure the Brady camp would say he's a bad cop for telling me to get a gun, especially since I was 15 at the time. People on this board would applaud him.

As I was told when I started this job, every day, someone will hate you. I guess I just didn't expect to see it so much on this board.

[sam59]

Jash,
I gave you credit for an earlier post when you mentioned not lumping them altogether. I have not aimed my comments at your post's because they are well thought out and articulate. I went back and reviewed your first post to me and I will give you my perspective on it.

[QUOTE]Quote by Jashobeam-By working with scum day in and day out, do you start to see all citizens as scum, or at least believe that each citizen is capable of acting like scum?

No I do not remotely see all citizens as scum. The second part is a broad question but I think all citizens have the potential if caught in the right circumstances to act like scum, but I personally judge them individually upon contact.

Are you wary of finding yourself in a vulnerable position with a potentially dangerous citizen?

This question puzzles me a bit. I am not sure if I am interpreting it right but here goes. YOUR DAMN RIGHT I am wary of finding myself in a vulnerable position with a potentially dangerous citizen! Any cop who is not has a death wish. Again, I am not sure how you meant that question but if I took it correctly I am surprised that you would ask such a for the lack of a better word, stupid question. I am not calling you stupid so don't take it that way.

Then how can you blame me, after hearing story after story about corrupt and/or abusive cops, for fearing finding myself in the hands of a police officer, since I have no way of knowing which of them is, or is at least capable of being, corrupt and/or abusive?

There is no answer to this, your fearing something that you have no control over and judging by the quote your fear stems from "story after story" which I assume means via the media. Well, if you believe everything (or should I say anything) the media pumps out then there is nothing I can say that will make a difference. I have personally witnessed the media's account of "the incident", exaggeration,cover up and boldface lies.

Which type of law breaking citizen do you consider to be scum?

This is a pretty easy question for me. I am sure you have your pet peeves in retail and I have mine.
1. Child molesters
2. Women beaters
3. Child abusers
4. Anybody that attempts to send me to the hospital or the morgue.

Thats my top 4.

I have no problem with cops who are (continuous tense) walking the walk. Are you attempting to make allowances for cops who WERE walking the walk but finally snapped when they came into contact with one too many scums?

I think you read into things a bit. I guess we could fire every one that makes a mistake or loses their temper.

If I were capable of understanding a cop's passive-aggressive misplacement of anger, are you insinuating that I should then find such actions acceptable?

You clearly not capable of understanding what I am saying, that was my point of "walking the walk". You will by the sounds of it never understand because I will go out on a limb and say you could not handle the job. Plain and simple, it would eat you up.
I am not sure what actions your talking about, if it's the video then I do not agree with what they did. What they did gives a black eye to all LEO's.

What if this "scum" was at one time an upstanding citizen who, also, WAS a continuous walker of the walk but snapped in his turn as a result of being subjected to some last straw of personal injustice and as a result committed the crime that labeled him "scum"? Will you make allowances for him, or will you turn a blind eye to his mistreatment?

I think you read into the question a little much. I don't agree with what they did.

Now if this person somehow got the upper hand against a cop and brutalized him, do you think I would defend his actions or make excuses or allowances? No. Whether or not a person, ANY PERSON, is typically good and law abiding is irrelevant; no excuse should be substituted for the punishment deserved for the commission of a violent or brutal crime.

I am not defending them. My main point was if you did the job your outlook on the profession would change. I guess it's a moot point since there is no way to prove either side.

[M-Rex]

Excellent post, sam59! Be aware, there are a lot of anti-cop bigots who inhabit 'The High Road'. These folks fester for stories like this to crop up in the media so they can post them and propagate new cop-bash threads. Much of their lives, they live in fear, and law enforcement provides a good scapegoat for their anxiety.
Then how can you blame me, after hearing story after story about corrupt and/or abusive cops, for fearing finding myself in the hands of a police officer, since I have no way of knowing which of them is, or is at least capable of being, corrupt and/or abusive?
These types of folks want stories like the one in the Sacramento Bee to be published because it justifies their warped world view. They want to believe that all 'po-lice' are corrupt as a justification for their free floating fear. Sad.

[buzz_knox]

Excellent post, sam59! Be aware, there are a lot of anti-cop bigots who inhabit 'The High Road'. These folks fester for stories like this to crop up in the media so they can post them and propagate new cop-bash threads. Much of their lives, they live in fear, and law enforcement provides a good scapegoat for their anxiety.

These types of folks want stories like the one in the Sacramento Bee to be published because it justifies their warped world view. They want to believe that all 'po-lice' are corrupt as a justification for their free floating fear. Sad.

Nice. But I'd say there are as many "the cops can do no wrong" types as there are bashers. And there are a lot of us fed up with both sides. But hey, what feeds the persecution complex on both sides, right?

[M-Rex]

Nice. But I'd say there are as many "the cops can do no wrong" types as there are bashers. And there are a lot of us fed up with both sides. But hey, what feeds the persecution complex on both sides, right?

Not hardly.

[45acpSHOOTER]

A blast from the past, but a good read:


Cops at War
The drug war and the militarization of Mayberry

By Joel Miller
12/30/02

©Luis Arenal
Waking up to the concussive sound of explosions, the rumble of heavy machinery, and the blaring crackle of a public-address system is hardly how most people enjoy greeting the day. Much worse when those things are accompanied by nearly four-dozen heavily armed police officers with a tank-like armored vehicle, seizing control of a city block.

This isn't a scene out of Judge Dredd or some dystopian cop movie set in the near-distant future. As far as news cycles go, it's actually old news, happening, as it did, in the wee hours of Oct. 17, 2002, in Whiteaker, Ore., when police staged what residents described as a military-style invasion of their neighborhood.

While laying siege to the block, authorities were, according to the Dec. 5 Eugene Register-Guard, targeting three houses in particular with hopes of nabbing a sizeable cache of cannabis. Once on the block, police stormed through the properties and secured the area, blocking traffic and guarding alleyways. An ambulance waiting in the wings tells volumes about the danger involved for police and suspects alike.

As has become common practice in such situations, police did not knock to announce their presence at the targeted houses. They burst through the doors in a massive display of force, setting off flash-bang grenades, to quickly gain control of the residents and the grounds.

"Police pulled four people–including a nude woman and another woman wearing only underpants and a T-shirt–from their beds and kept them in handcuffs in a room of one of the houses for several hours," reported Rebecca Nolan for the Register-Guard. "One woman reported that an officer covered her head with a black fabric bag and removed it only when she agreed to cooperate."

"They came in here and scared everyone to death," said Marcella Monroe, who co-owns the three houses with her husband Tam Davage. She was the woman who got the black-bag treatment. "They trashed our houses and accused us of a crime that they have no evidence for."

There was some evidence. Court documents say that more than 500 pot plants were found at a friend's Portland home in an August raid. But the Whiteaker raid turned up almost nothing. One tenant was found with less than an ounce of marijuana–only a misdemeanor and hardly the sum the force was anticipating. The team did find evidence of cannabis cultivation, but nothing that cannot be explained away by other factors, including Monroe's landscaping business, along with the equipment and materials from renovation work being done on two of the houses. The contractor doing the renovation, in fact, said she saw no evidence of drug growing or distribution.

Regardless of the guilt, what about the raid tactics?

"We rely on the element of surprise and speed," said Capt. Steve Swenson, headman of special operations for Eugene police. "The third element is an overwhelming display of force when you come through the door." Swenson admitted that the tactic "sounds bad, but it prevents problems. We don't know who we're dealing with when we go through the door."

The overwhelming display of brute force is routine in SWAT raids. "Particularly in narcotics warrant service, to make their entry as dynamic and overwhelming as possible, SWAT teams often use the swarm or saturation method," explains Capt. Robert L. Snow in his book, SWAT Teams: Explosive Face-offs With America's Deadliest Criminals. "This technique involves the immediate flooding of the inside of a location with police officers. Doing this gives the officers immediate control of the inside of the location, discourages thoughts of resistance, and prevents the destruction of any evidence. The idea behind the technique is to immediately dominate the site with officers and firepower."

But Snow points to a problem: "This tactic, however, has a certain inherent danger level should any shooting break out, since officers could very easily be caught in the cross fire." Interestingly, Snow doesn't seem to share the same concern for the suspects–even plainly innocent ones. He only mentions police being accidentally shot. The reader is left with the presumption that if the residents are "caught in the cross fire," then that's just tough turkey–they're only criminals.

But, of course, they're not only criminals. Primarily, our legal system regards them as suspects, and police are expected to protect the civil rights of suspects just as much as any other citizen. They are, after all, innocent until proven guilty. Sometimes, sadly, raid victims never get a chance to prove their innocence.

When the sheriff's office of Preble County, Ohio, got word from an informant that residents at a rural farmhouse were dealing marijuana, it conducted a three-day investigation, and then sent its emergency services unit on a late-evening, no-knock raid. Because the farmhouse had possibly more than a dozen men on site, a heavily armed team of 15 officers was sent.

The result, besides what the Dayton Daily News referred to as "a small amount of marijuana, pipes and a bong, papers used in rolling the drug, and weapons," was a dead suspect, Clayton J. Helriggle, who police shot as he came down the stairs with what they claim was a 9mm handgun.

Helriggle's own mother admits that it was regular practice for her son and men at the house to smoke pot in the evening after work. But was such a raid necessary? Police said they found materials used to distribute marijuana, true, but sandwich bags are also used to wrap up a ham-and-cheese. The other items found indicate nothing more than use of the drug, which was found only in "a small amount"–hardly worth sending in the big guns.

As for possessions of weapons, it was a farmhouse; what farmhouse doesn't have varmint rifles and the like? The very incident which led to Helriggle's death is likely the police's fault more than anything. By raiding a house at twilight, can a suspect be expected to behave any differently than picking up a personal defense weapon and coming down the stairs to face an invader of his home? Responsible homeowners and renters should be expected to defend their residencies from invaders.

What we are seeing here is the militarization of police, with law enforcement officers becoming shock troops in the war on drugs and crime.

The problem goes back to the metaphor itself. War and policing are vastly different. In common parlance the military's job is to kill people and break things. David B. Kopel of the Independence Institute quotes Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb's observation: Soldiers are supposed to "vaporize, not 'Mirandize.'" On the other hand, with scrupulous attention to the suspect's civil rights, police are trained to solve problems with a multitude of solutions, lethal violence being the last rung on the escalating ladder of force.

Considering the vastly different roles of police and military, it is odd to find the U.S. military helping to train local police and SWAT teams. But given this ever-closing gap, should we be surprised when our police act like soldiers?

Some police chiefs recognize the contradiction in police and military roles and the danger of mixing them. As Diana Cecilia Weber points out in a Cato Institute briefing paper, "Warrior Cops," because of a partnership between the Department of Justice and Department of Defense, local police forces are able to get their hands on pretty stunning equipment. "I was offered tanks, bazookas, anything I wanted," said Nick Pastore, former police chief of New Haven, Conn. (The Whiteaker armored vehicle in which police arrived was actually a loaner from the National Guard.) Pastore said he "turned it all down because it feeds a mind-set that you're not a police officer serving a community, you're a soldier at war."

Pastore is in the minority, however. Around the nation police are grabbing military handouts like kids with toys at Christmas. Says Weber, "Between 1995 and 1997 the Department of Defense gave police departments 1.2 million pieces of military hardware, including 73 grenade launchers and 112 armored personnel carriers. The Los Angeles Police Department has acquired 600 Army surplus M-16s." While one might expect that from L.A., the militarism trend is national. "Even small-town police departments are getting into the act. The seven-officer department in Jasper, Florida, is now equipped with fully automatic M-16s."

This "militarization of Mayberry," as some have called it, is a far cry from how the founders envisioned law enforcement.

When the founders wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they were living close to a time when the British Crown would send soldiers to search properties without warrants. At the same time, officers of the Crown could get Writs of Assistance that were technically search warrants but were really just blanket licenses to search anyone without cause. Today we're seeing a melding of the two. With the militarization of the police and the overriding pressure to combat drugs, the constitutional protections framed by the founders in response to the crimes of their day are being violently repealed.

It's hard for people to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," as the Fourth Amendment ensures, when black-fatigued men set off flash-bang grenades, kick down doors, and storm in armed with machine pistols and unpleasant demeanors.

What if the search is "reasonable"–supported by probable cause, etc.? In principle, that's the type of search the founders would approve. But in both raids mentioned previously, the investigations by police indicated they'd find serious drug cultivation and distribution operations. Considering what they actually found, it may not have been improbable, but it certainly wasn't probable cause. In the Preble raid, the investigation only lasted three days.

As the militarization of police presses on, the Fourth Amendment's protections–designed to shield citizens from government abuse–mean less and less. As a result, so do your freedom and safety, even in your own home.

Joel Miller is managing editor of WND Books, a partnership between WorldNetDaily.com and Thomas Nelson Publishers.

http://www.rutherford.org/oldspeak/articles/law/oldspeak-cops.asp

[buzz_knox]

Not hardly.

A well-planned rejoinder, striking to the very heart of the matter. Well, not quite but still. Yet, with a signature that says "100% Pro-Police" not unexpected. Does 100% pro-police allow for the possibility of admitting police error? Do posters who say that they will always give the police the benefit of the doubt, despite the evidence presented? Or posters who state that they will not judge a cop's actions until a court rules on the issue (thereby abrogating their own judgment and common sense)? Or someone who states that whenever a person talks about the problems with police, that person is engaging in police bashing?

You'll find all those examples on the board. Surely, there are just as many as the examples you've cited of people who want to be the subject of police brutality so they can talk about.

Here's a clue, guys. You're complaining about the bad press causing loss of respect for the profession. Welcome to how the rest of the world lives. Want that to change? Do something about it, rather than complain about it. The rest of us professionals in hated industries who aren't interested in complaining about the loss of respect (anyone hugged your doctor lately? How about your lawyer?) are doing precisely that. We're working to change said lack of respect by working on the perceived problems, not complaining when someone discusses them.

[Edited after M-Rex was confused by the typos in the second paragraph]

[antarti]

I don't really care what LEOs (or anybody else, for that matter) thinks of me, or what "bucket" they want to toss me into. I bet it's no surprise that LEOs could give a crap what I think of them. It's not how we perceive each other that matters. It's how we're treated by each other. Sort of like "Size does matter, but it's the WIDTH"...

What I'm getting at is the following: I do my job, they do theirs, and (since I'm not a criminal anyway) never should the twain meet. How realistic is that? I wish it were more realistic.

The bottom line is should I get nabbed doing something "criminal", I get the book thrown at me, treated like scum, etc. And that is FINE. But when an LEO does something criminal, they don't, and that ISN'T FINE.

You think the rules aren't arbitrary and the deck isn't stacked against the non-LEOs? Go ahead and compare contrast the difference between whacking the neighbors yappy dog when it wakes you up and craps in your yard, vs. shooting a K-9 unit doing the same thing.

It's still a DOG... seems the penalty should be the same, shoudn't it?

The differences between "them and us" extend into the obscenely absurd. THAT is what I loathe, not the person behind the badge, the system and the mindset behind the man behind the badge, which many buy into.

Feel free to call me (joe public) whatever names or heap superlative derogatives upon me now, sorry for the interuption... oh yeah, and tell me how I can't "handle" being an LEO, I actually like hearing those cheap-shots and below-the-belters, they make me laugh.

[M-Rex]

A well-planned rejoinder, striking to the very heart of the matter. Well, not quite but still. Yet, with a signature that says "100% Pro-Police" not unexpected. Does 100% pro-police allow for the possibility of admitting police error? Do posters who say that they will always give the police the benefit of the doubt, despite the evidence presented? Or posters who state that they will not judge a cop's actions until a court rules on the issue (thereby abrogating their own judgment and common sense)? Or someone who states that whenever a person talks about the problems with police, that person is engaging in police bashing?

Interesting, and predictable. You fixate on me, and my signature...specifically the first part you mentioned without taking into account the second. I agree. Errors are made. However, the title of this thread states the mindset of the author. It is a cop-bash troll thread. No more. No less. This thread was not started to intelligently discuss a particular issue. It is the equivilant of a kindergartner shouting, "See! See! He dood it! He dood it! Let's get 'em!"


You'll find all those examples of the board. Surely, just as many as the examples you've cited of people who want to be the subject of police brutality so they can talk about.

Huh?


Here's a clue, guys. You're complaining about the bad press causing loss of respect for the profession. Welcome to how the rest of the world lives. Want that to change? Do something about it, rather than complain about it. The rest of us professionals in hated industries who aren't interested in complaining about the loss of respect (anyone hugged your doctor lately? How about your lawyer?) are doing precisely that. We're working to change said lack of respect by working on the perceived problems, not complaining when someone discusses them.

I could almost hear music in the background. Clearly you are mistaking refutation with mere complaining. 'Us' professionals? As opposed to 'Them' mere mortals, perhaps?

[45acpSHOOTER]

tell me how I can't "handle" being an LEO, I actually like hearing those cheap-shots and below-the-belters, they make me laugh.

Dont worry to much about that comment. Some LEO's cant handle being LEO's, thats why we have these problems.;)

[buzz_knox]

Interesting, and predictable. You fixate on me, and my signature...specifically the first part you mentioned.

So responding to one particular post constitutes fixation. Wow. Learn something new every day. As for your signature, it's an issue of bias. If someone is pro-anything 100%, it's legitimate to ask if they are capable of accepting that the object of their total and absolute support is infallible.


I could almost hear music in the background. Clearly you are mistaking refutation with mere complaining. Clearly you are mistaking refutation with mere complaining. 'Us' professionals? As opposed to 'Them' mere mortals, perhaps?


Pithy, if non-responsive. What did you refute? You gave a one-sided presentation of bigotry, ignoring the bias that supports your side.

As for professionals vs. mortals, it was a reference to the "trust me, I'm a professional" comments often offered up to explain LEO behavior. You see, there are actually other professions in the world than being LEOs, and those involved are also called "professionals." We fall in the same category you put yourselves in. The difference is that our ability to practice in that profession would be greatly threatened if we acted in any way like other "professionals" do.

[45acpSHOOTER]

As for professionals vs. mortals, it was a reference to the "trust me, I'm a professional" comments often offered up to explain LEO behavior. You see, there are actually other professions in the world than being LEOs, and those involved are also called "professionals." We fall in the same category you put yourselves in. The difference is that our ability to practice in that profession would be greatly threatened if we acted in any way like other "professionals" do.


WELL SAID. :)

[M-Rex]

Dont worry to much about that comment. Some LEO's cant handle being LEO's, thats why we have these problems.;)

Grudgingly, I must agree. Unfortunately, the few bad apples do spoil the proverbial barrel.

[M-Rex]

As for professionals vs. mortals, it was a reference to the "trust me, I'm a professional" comments often offered up to explain LEO behavior. You see, there are actually other professions in the world than being LEOs, and those involved are also called "professionals." We fall in the same category you put yourselves in. The difference is that our ability to practice in that profession would be greatly threatened if we acted in any way like other "professionals" do.

Nice patronizing. Is this an example the vaunted level of 'professionalism' that you are taught in doctor or lawyer school?

It is always difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. It is no different in law enforcement. However, there don't seem to be as many doctor-bigots on this forum. At least, I haven't seen any, compared to the anti-cop bigots that permiate the membership of 'The High Road.'

High road, indeed.

[jashobeam]

Sam59, thank you for responding and adding clarification to the points I questioned. I hope you don't mind that I have taken the time to comment on a few of these points. First, though, I agree 100% that everyone is capable of acting like scum. My question to you (in quotes below) was a no-brainer to which I already knew your answer. I only asked it in order to get you into a frame of mind to understand that some citizens might feel just as wary in a potentially equally (if not more so) vulnerable situation that arises when they are detained by the police. I will comment more after the quote box.

Quote:
Are you wary of finding yourself in a vulnerable position with a potentially dangerous citizen?


This question puzzles me a bit. I am not sure if I am interpreting it right but here goes. YOUR DAMN RIGHT I am wary of finding myself in a vulnerable position with a potentially dangerous citizen! Any cop who is not has a death wish. Again, I am not sure how you meant that question but if I took it correctly I am surprised that you would ask such a for the lack of a better word, stupid question. I am not calling you stupid so don't take it that way.


Quote:
Then how can you blame me, after hearing story after story about corrupt and/or abusive cops, for fearing finding myself in the hands of a police officer, since I have no way of knowing which of them is, or is at least capable of being, corrupt and/or abusive?


There is no answer to this, your fearing something that you have no control over and judging by the quote your fear stems from "story after story" which I assume means via the media. Well, if you believe everything (or should I say anything) the media pumps out then there is nothing I can say that will make a difference. I have personally witnessed the media's account of "the incident", exaggeration,cover up and boldface lies.
Okay. Why are my fears less rational than yours? I should let you know that the media stories simply add to the first-hand accounts that I have heard for many years from friends who grew up across town. Of course you are free to agree or disagree, but it appears that treatment is different on my side (the nicer side) of town. I won't repeat those stories here as I have already related them elsewhere. Besides, I really don't want anyone replying that essentially my friends are liars because "cops wouldn't just act like that without cause".

Sam59, you, and ALL cops, have every right and justification to be extremely cautious when dealing with every citizen. Your fear, or distrust, is based on a very real potential threat. Please bear with me as I speculate that this caution, though well deserved, is the result of case-studies and stories of how things went wrong when proper precautions were not taken. My point is that even a first day rookie cop, who has never had a first-hand experience with a dangerous citizen, will still exercise (and should exercise) the same caution; this is because his training was supplemented by education consisting of case-studies, files, etc. STORIES. The word "story" often has a way of detracting from, and incorrectly betraying, the factual content of which it may consist. Stories, whether true or false, instill information. Some fears (like my fear of sharks--even in a lake--which is the result of watching Jaws too many times when I was young) are irrational but nonetheless real to those who are in fear. Even realistic fears, like those held by LEO's and those held by some citizens, though shown time and time again to be experientally (on a personal level) unfounded, will remain (and should remain) a point of valid concern despite circumstances that have repeatedly taught otherwise. The cop shouldn't lower his guard at his 100th "routine" traffic stop. Sam, thanks for sticking with me so far.

Typically, when I am pulled over I am not in fear for my life from the officer, nor am I anticipating mistreatment; I am usually thinking that I am about to get in trouble for something I have done.

Also, Sam59, sir, it insults me and whomever else you are addressing when you say that we are incapable of understanding your position or a point therein. I have endeavored to impart understanding of my position to you. I really would appreciate it if you took the time to communicate your thoughts, feelings, experiences to me so that I can understand your perspective. Even if some of what we say seems contradictory, this is okay because we are not talking about an issue that is purely black and white (unless we are speaking of right and wrong). I want to discuss this issue with REAL people, not those who are too shallow to even admit that they can understand the other side or say, "That's a good and valid point. Maybe I need to adjust my thinking a little." I am sure you did not intend it to be so, but to forfeit an explanation with a dismissal in the form of "you are not capable of understanding" is to resort to ad hominem. You have no idea how my imagination works and what my capacity is to comprehend an opposing viewpoint.

No matter how many friends I have in LE, I absolutely agree with you that my opinion of an officer's public perception would change drastically were I to walk in one's shoes. As an aside, most of those who know me, including cops, think that I would have been a good cop. But this thread is not about me.


Now, M-Rex. There must be more to you than you share in your posts. I have nothing against you personally, but you write so one-sidedly, so guardedly, so one-dimensionally that I find it hard to lend any weight to your words. You seem to make no effort to even understand anyone with thoughts and feelings unlike your own. I take a very long time to articulate my position, statements, assertions, and questions in as friendly and discussion-conducive manner as I can. Sometimes I get a little heated--I apologize. You come along, ignore the bulk of what I have said and dismiss me as someone who actively looks for and enjoys stories about cops who have probably just made the biggest error of their lives. I am able to see these cops as people just like me who get caught up in emotion or somehow get too far down a path that they assumed ran parallel from the straight and narrow. Do you think that my heart does not go out to these men and their families? Falling onto the wrong side of the law sucks! But when it happens the consequences must be administered. It grieves me when you refuse to comment on the actual topic of a thread and instead ridicule those who choose to state opinions different than yours.
Excellent post, sam59! Be aware, there are a lot of anti-cop bigots who inhabit 'The High Road'. These folks fester for stories like this to crop up in the media so they can post them and propagate new cop-bash threads. Much of their lives, they live in fear, and law enforcement provides a good scapegoat for their anxiety.

Quote:
Then how can you blame me, after hearing story after story about corrupt and/or abusive cops, for fearing finding myself in the hands of a police officer, since I have no way of knowing which of them is, or is at least capable of being, corrupt and/or abusive?

These types of folks want stories like the one in the Sacramento Bee to be published because it justifies their warped world view. They want to believe that all 'po-lice' are corrupt as a justification for their free floating fear. Sad.

[Beethoven]

I dont necessarily believe that a wish to "whup gangstas" is the sign of a bully. I think it has much more to do with an extreme distaste for bullies. Myself, I do not look for fights to get into, but I will admit that I see no wrong in feeling good about a righteous fracas with a bad person. That is why we are out there, so those who do not can sleep easily at night.



I'm glad you feel that way.

Thanks for doing what you do. :)

[Old Dog]

Arriving late to this party … once again, much competitive urination, no revelations.

So the thread-starter posts one article about possible pattern of abuse within one jail system and states that this is why all of us should be suspicious of all police. By that logic, since we see the occasional media story about a botched surgery (perhaps resulting in a death) in a hospital far away from us, we should all be suspicious of all doctors, operating room nurses and technicians. Because of the occasional story of embezzlement in a financial institution, we should distrust all persons in the banking industry and keep our cash under the mattress. Since my buddy told me that a 7-11 clerk once short-changed him, I should not trust any person working in any convenience store, always carry a pocket calculator and pay with exact change. Because Lyndi England led an Iraqi POW around with a dog collar and leash, we cannot trust our soldiers.

Antarti said, What I'm getting at is the following: I do my job, they do theirs, and (since I'm not a criminal anyway) never should the twain meet. How realistic is that? I wish it were more realistic. Well, I think it’s very realistic to think this way. In fact, I’d bet most folks in this country think it’s realistic to expect, in the context of any encounter with law enforcement officials, that the law enforcement personnel with simply do their job correctly, and that will be that. And I’d bet that that’s how 99.99% of all citizen-police encounters in this country go … It is only on internet forums, it seems, that so few are so vocal about their belief that so many law enforcement personnel are corrupt, incompetent and not only are aware that they routinely violate citizens’ rights, but that LEOs cover up for other LEOs doing this, and that it is a systemic, institutionalized problem …
But when an LEO does something criminal, they don't, and that ISN'T FINE.References? Documentation? I submit that 99.99% of the time that a LEO is proven to have engaged in criminal activity, the consequences for him (or her) are graver than for the average citizen.

[Beethoven]

Also, the Sacramento Bee is a very left leaning paper. Expect any story dealing with law enforcement to be heavily slanted and spun.



Towards law enforcement and against the "thugs" the LEO's were dealing with.

[pax]

Oh, for crying out loud.

Guys, go measure your private parts somewhere else. THR ain't the place for it.

Closed.

pax