dealing with out-of-line police officers.

[buzz_knox]

Like I said above, the law and reality are different. Nearly every state allows you to use force against any actor who uses unjustified force against you. If a cop freaks out and starts shooting, you are authorized to return fire.

But the reality says that if you and the cop are the only witnesses to the encounter, you are probably going down. Should the cop not be around to be a witness, it will only go worse for you (as the cop won't be able to slip up in his story and be caught in a lie). Your best hope is that if a cop starts attacking you or using excessive force, there will be other absolutely credible witnesses around videotaping things from multiple angles. If it's just people saying "they used too much force on that poor boy," it'll be discounted as bias, or failure to see/consider all the evidence.

 

[Powderman]

Oh, for heaven's sake.

This applies to ANYONE reading this thread...

Go ahead and roll the tape! Put your cameras on tripods if you want. Got good sound equipment? Careful--your boom mike might hit the overhead wires!!

TAPE AWAY ALREADY! TAPE TO YOUR HEART'S CONTENT!! TAPE FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES!!!

Most cops don't give a crap WHAT you're taping, WHERE you're taping, or WHAT you're using.

Ask for an interview, and we'll refer you gently to our Department spokesperson.

For all of the things I have seen posted on this board, you'd think that you all lived in 1940's Germany or 1970's Russia, for heaven's sake!

You know, I have a proposition for you. Since all of you seem to be SO afraid of cops, why don't you call your neighbors next time you hear that thump in the night? Or perhaps when your teenaged daughter has run off with the local yokels, get in your car and drive to wherever she is to get her back, how about it?

Maybe when your business is being held up at gunpoint, call Ghostbusters! Or, when you hear that scream outside and see a woman being forced into the bushes, get off your butt and get outside, and stop that rape!!

Since you're so scared of us, DON'T CALL US!!!

 

[patrol120]

What I find interesting is the fact that every thing I do is taped anyway. I tape it from my dash cam, and I would not be a cop without one. Trust me, cops dont care if you tape stuff, we tape it ourselves.

That camera has saved me from more complaints thanI care to mention.

 

[Smurfslayer]

Maybe when your business is being held up at gunpoint, call Ghostbusters! Or, when you hear that scream outside and see a woman being forced into the bushes, get off your butt and get outside, and stop that rape!!

Since you're so scared of us, DON'T CALL US!!!

damn. What's with all the citizen bashing?

PP noted that a "struggle" could be a legitimate good guy trying to subdue a legit bad guy and not winning. I would point out that not too long ago THR vetted the "what if" of what do you do if the much feard LEO asks you for help... If you were really witnessing someone getting a beating, would you do nothing? Suppose that person getting the beating is your mom.

Hopefullly our parents were successful in teaching us right from wrong, and we would do _something_ whether the aggressor is uniformed or not. but that doesn't necessarily mean starting a fight...

 

[buzz_knox]

Oh, for heaven's sake.

This applies to ANYONE reading this thread...

Go ahead and roll the tape! Put your cameras on tripods if you want. Got good sound equipment? Careful--your boom mike might hit the overhead wires!!

TAPE AWAY ALREADY! TAPE TO YOUR HEART'S CONTENT!! TAPE FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES!!!

Most cops don't give a crap WHAT you're taping, WHERE you're taping, or WHAT you're using.

Funny you should mention taping. Five deputies in this area are serving federal time for torturing a suspect to get his drug money. They didn't bother to check to insure his wife wasn't taping the encounter, which she was. Guess those are five cops who would have had a problem with taping.

But it's not about fear, by the way. It's about recognizing that yes, there are bad cops but you can't deal with them like you would with any other crook. There will always be that presumption that they were correct, and you have to rebut that. And the people you have to convince are the cops' co-workers, who are the ones who will be investigating the matter.

 

[Old Dog]

The entertainment value of THR would drop dramatically without our daily Bad Cops thread ...

 

[Joejojoba111]

It seems you guys are a little too defensive, making a mountain out of a mole hill. The posts you resent most are completely based in logic, polite, reasonable, and make a point of having a preface which specifies that they do not apply to good police officers.

...And you take great offence...


"For all of the things I have seen posted on this board, you'd think that you all lived in 1940's Germany or 1970's Russia, for heaven's sake!"

or 2005 New Orleans!


He said it was for the worst case. I kind of am surprised, because here is a man who says he does not want to use any confrontation at all if he is being wronged. He's talking about the most harmless defence plan imagineable!

"For all of the things I have seen posted on this board, you'd think that you all lived in 1940's Germany or 1970's Russia, for heaven's sake!"

That's exactly what was being discussed. The topic starter is considering non-violent defences against police officers behaving like they lived in either of the locales you mentioned. Nothing crazy, it's a worst-case scenario, if you haven't noticed there are lots of them here.

Perhaps you should go shout at people in the threads about bears, or boars, or zombies.


I can even cite example of police acting as death-squads 'taking-out scum. Perhaps more like 1980's Rio de Janiero, then Russia. but it happens. This thread isn't about citing bad things, we've seen those threads (I don't think you liked them). This thread was about using a recording device.

 

[Krenn]

First, let me state the following:

1. I have every respect for my local police officers in particular, and for all police in general.
2. I have never been hassled by police, nor do I ever expect to be.
3. I certainly understand that police should always be given the benifit of doubt.

However, there ARE incidences where police or federal officers have been FAR out of line. in such cases, video of the incident, along with any other usefull documentation, is certainly usefull. for instance, the police beatings in southern california.

my next PDA will have video and audio capture abilities. (probably a LOOX 720.) Should I ever encounter any situation that calls for an impecable witness, I will probably have an instant-record button mappped on the PDA.

But Here's the kicker question; under what circumstances would a citizen be justified in physically interfering with or threatening a police officer? are there ANY such circumstances? and how close to reality are the relevant laws?

that's what I originally posted. To reiterate:

I do not expect to see am out-of control cop in my lifetime.

My first, second, and third lines of defense is an audio/video recorder.

My FINAL line of defense may be a firearm. What I'm posting to this thread is the question of WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES should trigger that Final line of defense?

prefferably without requiring that I become a fugitive, a prisoner, or a revolutionary.

 

[Carlos]

The entertainment value of THR would drop dramatically without our daily Bad Cops thread ...

+1

 

[c_yeager]

Funny you should mention taping. Five deputies in this area are serving federal time for torturing a suspect to get his drug money. They didn't bother to check to insure his wife wasn't taping the encounter, which she was. Guess those are five cops who would have had a problem with taping.

The point is that he still got tortured, didnt he?

You can tape away all you want. If you look around these tapes dont carry the same weight that they used to. The Rodney King beating sparked riots and ourtrage accross the entire nation, and the victim was pretty easily defined as a scumbag. Remember the beating in New Orleans that occured very recently? Yeah people noticed, but noone really cared, and that victim was a school teacher.

 

[buzz_knox]

The point is that he still got tortured, didnt he?

You can tape away all you want. If you look around these tapes dont carry the same weight that they used to. The Rodney King beating sparked riots and ourtrage accross the entire nation, and the victim was pretty easily defined as a scumbag. Remember the beating in New Orleans that occured very recently? Yeah people noticed, but noone really cared, and that victim was a school teacher.

Yup. He still did. And they went to prison in large part because it wasn't just his word against theirs. It was their own statements, combined by his screams in response to their actions.

I wonder what would have happened if they had found out the wife was taping them during the encounter?

 

[TallPine]

under what circumstances would a citizen be justified in physically interfering with or threatening a police officer?

When they come to confiscate your guns....??

Molon Labe (except where prohibited by law)

 

[c_yeager]

I wonder what would have happened if they had found out the wife was taping them during the encounter?

Walmart sells shovels 24/7

 

[junyo]

Name a person who's been grabbed off the streets days before a protest, name one. Let me guess, they were beaten, locked up in a secret jail for three days, and then released. And if they tell anyone, besides you and 48 million people on the internet the sombra negra is coming for them.

Joshua Kinberg

 

[junyo]

Oh, for heaven's sake.

This applies to ANYONE reading this thread...

Go ahead and roll the tape! Put your cameras on tripods if you want. Got good sound equipment? Careful--your boom mike might hit the overhead wires!!

TAPE AWAY ALREADY! TAPE TO YOUR HEART'S CONTENT!! TAPE FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES!!!

Most cops don't give a crap WHAT you're taping, WHERE you're taping, or WHAT you're using.

Ask for an interview, and we'll refer you gently to our Department spokesperson.

For all of the things I have seen posted on this board, you'd think that you all lived in 1940's Germany or 1970's Russia, for heaven's sake!

You know, I have a proposition for you. Since all of you seem to be SO afraid of cops, why don't you call your neighbors next time you hear that thump in the night? Or perhaps when your teenaged daughter has run off with the local yokels, get in your car and drive to wherever she is to get her back, how about it?

Maybe when your business is being held up at gunpoint, call Ghostbusters! Or, when you hear that scream outside and see a woman being forced into the bushes, get off your butt and get outside, and stop that rape!!

Since you're so scared of us, DON'T CALL US!!!

"Most cops don't give a crap WHAT you're taping..." Most, not all, most. Which means even you, for all the histrionics, acknowledge that some don't want scrutiny of their actions. What you consistently fail to allow for is that we as citizens, don't know which of you, as cops are the dangerous ones, and the 'exasperated victim' pout doesn't help. Read the threads on THR; after the Toledo riots page after page of what "black people need to do", and there's always another thread or two going on that or some corollary topic. Muslims and Democrats get it too. Darn near any group that has dangerous members, by choice or otherwise, gets kicked and complained about, the innocent smeared alone with the guilty, and rarely does anyone say jack. Like it or not, cops have, by your own implicit acknowledgement, dangerous members. So why, exactly, do you expect better treatment?

 

[patrol120]

By your own litmus test, why should cops be kind and courteous to the citizens we interact with on a daily basis? We never know which one of you is a bad guy. As a matter offact, we have a far greater chance of running into a corrupt, crooked, or generally unsavory citizen than you do a bad cop.

 

[c_yeager]

By your own litmus test, why should cops be kind and courteous to the citizens we interact with on a daily basis?

Its your job, that is what your paid to do.

 

[patrol120]

Mr. yeager, I agree 100%. I was simply making a point. I strive to be courteous and decent in all I do in uniform, as long as it is safe to do so. I am paid to be a public servant, but I am not paid to be spat upon or killed. This is where many have trouble seeing the difference.

 

[Joejojoba111]

Sorry Patrol, but you're full of it now and you can't deny it.

"patrol120 By your own litmus test, why should cops be kind and courteous to the citizens we interact with on a daily basis? We never know which one of you is a bad guy. As a matter offact, we have a far greater chance of running into a corrupt, crooked, or generally unsavory citizen than you do a bad cop."


You are lieing a bit too often for me to respect it. A well placed lie here and there, no problem. But lieing in every sentence, that's too much.

You never know which one is the bad guy? What kind of joke is that? It's kind of sick, if you are driving down the street and that's what you see when you look at the public. Otherwise, it's pretty clear who that guy is when he's running down the street wearing a ski mask with a handgun and a bag of money in each hand. Or the guy who is in handcuffs that you are supposed to transport. Or the guy you just pulled over for driving through a fence..

For pete's sake you are the freaking guy who stands up and shouts to the world that PROFILING WORKS. But now you tell us that it doesn't work.

Please keep your lies straight, I'm not paid to clean them up for you.


Ok, I was wrong, it's just the first part that I disagree with. Your last sentence makes sense, but it has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. I could type, "But the sky is blue!", and pretend it supports an argument. Of course a police officer has a greater chance to run into an unsavory character, lol. That means nothing to the topic at hand.


You know, you're probably an all-right guy, and maybe the topic seemed a little offensive to you. I should clarify tha it's not personal, no one has any reason to think that you're a bad person. The topic wasn't about you, it was one of those 'SHTF' things.

But think about it, the chances are you wil see the criminal coming. The criminal police officer, however, is always in disguise. That's what the very first poster was trying to explain, and why he felt that, low as the chances are of an encounter, he would need a plan to deal with it.

 

[Powderman]

You are lieing a bit too often for me to respect it. A well placed lie here and there, no problem. But lieing in every sentence, that's too much.

OK. Demonstrate where the lie is in patrol120's statement.

You never know which one is the bad guy?

No, we don't. We have to enter each and every call that we respond to with a neutral mind. In short, NO ONE is immediately guilty--or innocent.

Or the guy you just pulled over for driving through a fence..

Automatic bad guy? Or, maybe someone in the middle of a diabetic episode, the initial onset of an epileptic seizure disorder, or someone trying to get someone to a hospital? If you can deduce automatically that someone who does this is a bad guy then you have mastered an art any cop would give a year's pay to learn. Tell us how you do it, please?

the chances are you wil see the criminal coming.

NO, YOU WON'T.

There are cemeteries with many dead officers in them who made that fatal, final mistake. Many times, the only warning you will get is a shifting glance, a change in posture, the movement of hands. Sometimes, the only warning is that time when the hair stands up on the back of your neck and starts screaming that something is wrong.

Ok, I was wrong, it's just the first part that I disagree with.

You call this person a liar twice--quite vociferously, might I add--and then I guess this is supposed to make it right, huh?

A question--have you ever spent one hour--no, one MINUTE--in a police officer's shoes? Darned few critics have.

You all are so quick to blast ALL officers and paint us with this horribly tarred brush. Could you stand the same scrutiny and the same generalization that you and others smack police officers with?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again--NO ONE IS QUICKER TO SLAM A DIRTY COP THAN OTHER COPS. No, it hasn't always been that way, and I'm the first to admit it. Yes, there are dirty cops--far too many.

But to imply that ALL cops are somehow engaged in a sinister purpose to violate your rights, falsely imprison or beat and torture is unfair at best--and just dead wrong. I see these types of threads way too often, and it makes me think twice about the hearts of some of the people here.

So, here it is in a nutshell:

If you don't want to be contacted by a police officer, there are two things that you must do. It's actually quite simple.

1. DON'T BREAK THE LAW. Drive under the speed limit, follow the laws of your jurisdiction regarding the carrying of firearms, and ensure that you do the best job you can of OBEYING THE LAW. That way, there is NO reason to contact you. Oh, yeah--stay out of questionable areas, too.

If I see you walking around in a known high-crime area, and I don't know you, you can bet I'm going to make contact. If I see you in a city park after hours, I'll stop and talk to you. And don't be surprised if you decide to take a short cut through someone's yard, or in the back of someone's business; or if you lock yourself out of your car and I see you trying to get in via coathanger and Officer Not-So-Friendly decides to see what you're up to.

2. DON'T CALL THE POLICE--FOR ANY REASON. If you can't stand us, don't call us. Take care of your own problems. Investigate your own break ins, and if you have the neighbor from hell who decides to threaten you, DON'T CALL ME. I have enough to worry about without having to think that YOU, as the "victim", are thinking about how to neutralize me if YOU think that I'm doing something you don't like.

Oh, and by the way--who gave you the right to challenge someone's integrity?

 

[Joejojoba111]

To clarify, the first sentence was the build up to the lie, the second sentence was the lie, and the third sentence was a smoke-screen to hide the lie and/or change the subject. So no, every sentence wasn't a lie (as originally stated), but they're guilty by association.

"'ve said it before, and I'll say it again--NO ONE IS QUICKER TO SLAM A DIRTY COP THAN OTHER COPS."
Unfortunately their defintion of 'dirty' is a matter of circumstance and convenience. What some people might call 'dirty', others might call 'necessary due to bureaucrats who make stupid rules with their thumbs up their asses'. Does embellishment on the witness stand make one dirty? It's a matter of perspective.


And, because you are also quite skilled at trying to change the subject, please don't go on the defensive. Strangely enough, you are going on the defensive against some rather strongly worded attacks that - - you made against yourself??? I think you are either trying to go off topic deliberately, by attacking yourself with your own strawmen confused: ), or...



And, because I am reasonable I'll continue to give the benefit of the doubt. The entire purpose of this thread, to answer all your qustions about identification, is that all officers look pretty much alike. They are, shall we say, 'uniform' in appearance. If one of them is 'bad', you cannot tell by appearance. That's all! That's why evasive maneuvr's could not be contemplated, because if trouble is upon you it is too late.

Conversely, if you have the same view from the officer's postiion, it means 1 of 2 things. #1)All citizens are viewed as indistinguishable from criminals, law-abiding citizens being potential criminals not committing crimes at that moment. #2)You're being obfuscatious, pretending to have no judgement skills whatsoever; all previous statements about instinct and profiling were lies, and if a man wearing a pistol and ski-mask walked past you wouldn't bat an eye. In essence, it suggests that every notion of 'reasonable' or 'probable' is incompatible with your very nature.


As you can see I doubt you have that view from the officer's position, but I admit I can not truly know. Rather than assuming nefarious nature, I give benefit of it likely simply being a debate tactic.

 

[Geno]

Zrex...good quotes

First let me make this observation. If I were an attorney, setting my sights on sueing a rogue cop, the first thing I'd do is search their computer. I'd back-track every internet site they've ever visited, determine what their views are per their postings. I'd look for jokes about police beatings, statements of how they'd shoot anyone who disobeyed an order if the law permitted, etc. Good thing about this forum...it creates "ostensible history".

Seems Texas has its head on straight. I fail to see a difference between a civilian scumbag and a uniformed scumbag. Abuse is abuse. In Michigan, if some abuser is in uniform, "it's" protected by the benevolent badge. You interfere, you get arrested...period and end of the dictator's word. Seems in Texas, they have common sense; maybe I should move there.

I find the "yuck, yuck, yuck" comments about the Rodney King beating, and the failure to bludgen him properly, just a bit overboard. That's okay though, it creates ostensble history.

Edit to add. Has anyone else been following the development of brain scan technology as the new polygraph? Interesting concept. It is claimed to be very effective in assessing racist deception.

Doc2005

 

[deanf]

But Here's the kicker question; under what circumstances would a citizen be justified in physically interfering with or threatening a police officer? are there ANY such circumstances?

Read up on the Waco case. All the defendants were aquitted of illegally killing or assaulting any federal officers. So apperently there are circumstances, at least at the federal level, where it is legal to call "bull" and proceed with force against officers.

 

[buzz_knox]

You all are so quick to blast ALL officers and paint us with this horribly tarred brush. Could you stand the same scrutiny and the same generalization that you and others smack police officers with?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again--NO ONE IS QUICKER TO SLAM A DIRTY COP THAN OTHER COPS. No, it hasn't always been that way, and I'm the first to admit it. Yes, there are dirty cops--far too many.

But to imply that ALL cops are somehow engaged in a sinister purpose to violate your rights, falsely imprison or beat and torture is unfair at best--and just dead wrong. I see these types of threads way too often, and it makes me think twice about the hearts of some of the people here.

1. Thanks for admitting that there are bad cops. All too often, the mere suggestion of their existence is derided as BS.

2. Dirty cops tend to start small and grow into the major problems. Right? That's the pattern with crooks, correct. Where were the other cops when the bad ones started to go wrong? Looking the other way; hoping he/she would change; covering up for him/her; taking part in the crime themselves? Don't know. But the fact that dirty cops get dirtier and dirtier says someone is protecting them.

3. The thread is about bad cops. You have turned it into a discussion about all cops. Perhaps you should look into your own heart, before discussing anyone elses.

So, here it is in a nutshell:

If you don't want to be contacted by a police officer, there are two things that you must do. It's actually quite simple.

1. DON'T BREAK THE LAW.

Doesn't work.

1. We have no idea of all the laws out there we might be breaking simply by living our lives; and,

2. You don't have to break a law to have a cop approach you; all the cop has to do is think you were doing wrong; and,

3. Cops make mistakes. I've had a cop at my door because someone mistook me for a suspect (someone harassing students was seen entering my dorm so they got the last name on a blood donor list and thought it was the guy. Turned out it was the last person to sign was me, but I wasn't the last to enter), and had two separate cops serving warrants to my place twice because they got the wrong address. So, I do everything right, and the cops are still there. Thank God they weren't doing a no-knock on the THREE occasions I've had encounters with cops without breaking any law whatsoever.

 

[Sindawe]

2. You don't have to break a law to have a cop approach you; all the cop has to do is think you were doing wrong;

Heck, the cops in Ohio can STEAL YOUR IDENTITY for their own uses.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Supporters of Ohio's identity theft law are livid that state liquor control agents gave a college student the driver's license and Social Security number of another woman so she could pose as a stripper for a sting.

Investigators and Miami County Prosecutor Gary Nasal came up with nothing more than misdemeanor charges in the 2003 vice operation targeting the Total Xposure strip bar near Troy in western Ohio.

Nasal said the ploy was legal because a change in Ohio's law the previous year aimed at curbing identity theft. The law allows police to use a person's identity within the context of an investigation, he said.

And the tactics were justified because authorities managed to close the club, Nasal said.

''I don't apologize for the investigation and the conduct,'' he told The Columbus Dispatch for a story Sunday. ''The result speaks for itself.''

Source: http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=5&id=22852

THR.Orgs code of conduct dissuades me from saying more on the topic as a whole.