F!uck The Police!

[chi]

sorry to say and i think most will agree, takes a certain kind of individual to become an officer. Tired of people saying that being a cop is so dangerous and you have to deal with so much for little pay. Well if that is the case then dont take the job if you are going to complain and whine about it. Blatant misuse of authority in this video and it is sad but i am sure those assholes will get away with it and the woman is going to catch hell.

here are another 2 prized courageous officers

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5127152.story

I hope they burn in fcking hell.

[DeniZen]

well you 20somethings have no clue what these men and women go thru everyday...having to deal with scum and take heaps of shit everyday...dashboard cameras rolling. I know plenty of cops, mostly ex USMC tough ****ers with level heads. I'm amazed at the stories some time. I always say "Damn I would just shoot the douscebag on the spot" I wouldn't last a week in their shoes lol

[zaggahamma]

those of you that disagree with the fact ! that in this instance this cop misused his authority do you believe the lady committed a crime by the video taping itself, or chose to ignore the officers commands that she discontinue the videotaping because he was unsafe....

ever see the movie crash? remember when dillon "frisked" the guys wife????????????? dat ok, too?

eh, brut?

great movie!

[Noles12]

I see nothing wrong with the videotaping. If they are doing things right then they have nothing to hide therefore videotaping is not an issue.

Though uneccessary the officer made requests for her to get away in fear of his safety. She didnt follow it therefore he acted on it. I still do not think its right but he asked her go away and she did not

[MastaMan]

This is very sad that people have this mentality. This is the mentality of hitler.. move to a communist country if you feel cops authority should overrule our voted for rights. I keep a gun at my house and if sombody violates me (cop or not) they will lose thier life with no remorse from me. My tax dollars should be going to catch rapists and murderers and meth labs not pot smokers and women with a video camera

Hell yeah cops today act like the ****ing SS. And if people don't speak up about the little things now, who's going to protect our rights when we're all in jail and they try to get away with something big... The government is in place for our protection not oppression..

[brad1986]

zabster151.... you seem off the deep end brother. lay off the the sh!t... and put the assault rifle down.... CARAZAYY

funny your calling him off the deep end but look at whos in your avitar...just sayin

[gixxerboy1]

well you 20somethings have no clue what these men and women go thru everyday...having to deal with scum and take heaps of shit everyday...dashboard cameras rolling. I know plenty of cops, mostly ex USMC tough ****ers with level heads. I'm amazed at the stories some time. I always say "Damn I would just shoot the douscebag on the spot" I wouldn't last a week in their shoes lol

I'm not 20 something. I wish. I'm sure you are amazed at the storied. And you will be amazed by the ones cops screw over.
Why the comment about dash cams? Why know cops cant do anything they want?

My best friend from HS is a cop and his whole family. He says cause of camera's its not like it used to be. You can do anything you wanted before. But no the chances of being taped are to high.

I've had a of duty cop pull a gun on me in a club cause he thought i was hitting on his wife.

I've had an off duty drunk cop driving almost hit me and my friends on our motorcycles. We got him to stop. Witnesses that were driving stopped. The local cops came. Said the driver wasnt drunk. Refused to test him. Told the witnesses to leave. And threaten to arrest us. And let the drunk cop drive away. When i later complained and blew shit up online. AI got involved and investigated. The cop admitted to drinking. The local cops admitted they smelled alcohol on him but didnt think he was drunk. So all in all nothing happened to any of them.

I was waiting in line to get into a club with my girl. A cop pulled us out of line. I looked suspicious. Checked our id's. searched and harassed the shit out of me. Threatening to arrest me. I had nothing and did nothing and let us go. Next night my girl is out with her friends. see's the same cop. He stops her and asked her out. Says he knew i didnt do anything just wanted to gt our info. He liked her.

Yea cops are awesome.

[brad1986]

Hell yeah cops today act like the ****ing SS. And if people don't speak up about the little things now, who's going to protect our rights when we're all in jail and they try to get away with something big... The government is in place for our protection not oppression..

Are you serious?? More government is what is ruined our economy! More government is what is wrong with america right now. I feel mosta agree we need less govt intervention and regulation. If we are ok with police acting like s.s then whaat the **** did we fight for in ww1 and ww2? How can we continue to be a free nation when people liek you are okay with the Patriat act and other bs like that to get more govt in our lives and control everything we do. It scares me that peple like you are voting..... and wtf does the above bold mean?? Why would we all be in jail? seems like your contradicting yourself

[zaggahamma]

just do wut they ask.....

RIGHT

pffttt

[gixxerboy1]

Are you serious?? More government is what is ruined our economy! More government is what is wrong with america right now. I feel mosta agree we need less govt intervention and regulation. If we are ok with police acting like s.s then whaat the **** did we fight for in ww1 and ww2? How can we continue to be a free nation when people liek you are okay with the Patriat act and other bs like that to get more govt in our lives and control everything we do. It scares me that peple like you are voting..... and wtf does the above bold mean?? Why would we all be in jail? seems like your contradicting yourself

i think he was being sarcastic

[zaggahamma]

i think he was being sarcastic

not so sure...i didnt read it sarcasticly ...if u read the statements before and after it appeared not to be sarcastic ...but idk

[brad1986]

Maybe i read that wrong masta man...

[brad1986]

Sorry if i get al lil poitically sensitive on here you guys lol... This subject just really rings my bells and gixxer boy i had had the same type of experiences as you and then some. Ive watched police throw a mentally disabled man down the stairs because he wouldnt shut up. I watched them pepper spray people for disagreeing with them (non agressivly) And they can do it with no reprecusions. I have been arrested by a cop that didnt like me from high school on bogus charges that were later dropped (because i didnt do anythng illegal) but they still got me for 2000usd for bail. A freind of mines dad is a cop and just got arrested for being involved in a child pornagraphy ring. I ask you all this... If any of these things happend to you or your mom or sister how would you feel then?

[zaggahamma]

not so sure...i didnt read it sarcasticly ...if u read the statements before and after it appeared not to be sarcastic ...but idk

i think i read the wrong quote...i went back too far

[zaggahamma]

Sorry if i get al lil poitically sensitive on here you guys lol... This subject just really rings my bells and gixxer boy i had had the same type of experiences as you and then some. Ive watched police throw a mentally disabled man down the stairs because he wouldnt shut up. I watched them pepper spray people for disagreeing with them (non agressivly) And they can do it with no reprecusions. I have been arrested by a cop that didnt like me from high school on bogus charges that were later dropped (because i didnt do anythng illegal) but they still got me for 2000usd for bail. A freind of mines dad is a cop and just got arrested for being involved in a child pornagraphy ring. I ask you all this... If any of these things happend to you or your mom or sister how would you feel then?

it shouldnt HAVE to hit that close to home but for some it does

[JohnnyVegas]

^^^ Sorry i disagree. you dont earn my respect by passing a test and pinning on a badge. You have to earn it like anyone else.
I've never had a good experience with a cop or a cop that actually helped me. I've had some bad run ins with cops that were seriously not my fault and both cops should have been arrested.

I agree they need to earn respect. I have never had a bad experience with a cop...even when I was arrested (once, a million years ago). My lifestyle always has me far away from things cops show up for, and the only time I seem to interact with police officers is for speeding, which is my fault and I know the consequences. I have even had an officer help me when I locked my keys in my car. He made me show my ID and registration after we got the car open to make sure it was mine.

dont remember anyone saying they were all bad or all thugs, etc...if they did they were wrong only the cops in this video is what i am commenting on

Since you quoted me, I will point out that I was talking in generalities, not about anyone's comment specifically. Mostly I was responding to the people that seem to hate all cops.

[/B]
Thats funny because the cops have never protected me form anything. I have never been serviced at all by police and they have never done one positive thing for me. Police need to be screeend better because and asshole with no direction in life can become a cop. Police are the biggest gang the world knows

The police do protect you. Their presence lowers crime. You wouldn't want to live in a nation with no law enforcement. You know all those articles you read about places in Africa, or former Soviet republics where there are countless rapes, thefts, robberies and murders? That is a product of little law enforcement. Just because a police officer hasn't instantly shown up and protect you in a fight, or kept your car from being stolen doesn't mean they don't do anything for you.

EDIT: FOR THE RECORD, I SUPPORT PEOPLE THAT RECORD POLITE INTERACTIONS AND BELIEVE THE POLICE NOT ONLY NEED TO BE ACCOUNTABLE, BUT HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD BECAUSE THEY NEED THE PUBLIC'S TRUST.

[MastaMan]

Are you serious?? More government is what is ruined our economy! More government is what is wrong with america right now. I feel mosta agree we need less govt intervention and regulation. If we are ok with police acting like s.s then whaat the **** did we fight for in ww1 and ww2? How can we continue to be a free nation when people liek you are okay with the Patriat act and other bs like that to get more govt in our lives and control everything we do. It scares me that peple like you are voting..... and wtf does the above bold mean?? Why would we all be in jail? seems like your contradicting yourself

Yes i have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I said nothing about more government or anything like that

[MastaMan]

We would all be in jail because the unregulated government will have imprisoned us..

[zabster151]

zabster151.... You seem off the deep end brother. Lay off the the sh!t... And put the assault rifle down.... Carazayy

never!!!

[thegodfather]

There is so much poor information in this thread, so please allow me to interject with some degree of reason, and give the perspective of someone who has a background with constitutional law and interpretation. I'm going to give a legal analysis of the situation, rather then allow emotion and anectdotal evidence to cloud my judgement in my response, as has been the case in 99% of these responses so far.

Thus far, the two types of responses we have seen have been either
A) "The anecdote" - A poster has had a bad experience during contact with law enforcement, and thus expresses their displeasure through a retelling of their bad experience, an applies a sweeping generalization to this situation we have witnessed.

and

B) "The friend/co-worker/experience as LE"- A poster who is either intimately involved with someone in law enforcement (friendship, significant other,etc), or someone who works in law enforcement in some capacity, and thus is advocating for the police. Using phrases such as "its a thankless job," "if you had to deal with what they have to deal with on a daily basis," etc and so on.

Unfortunately, neither case makes your viewpoint any less valid, in so far as you have a deep seated belief that you are right, however, empirically the law agrees with neither of you. While it is true that law enforcement is a thankless job, law enforcement officers must operate within the boundary of the laws of the land regardless of their own "feelings" about said laws and whether they argee with them or not. Likewise, private citizens must operate within the limits of the law, and abide by them regardless of their own feelings about those laws as well.

As a law enforcement officer and public servant, when you perform your duties, you are subjected to public scrutiny. So I will list in a numbered format, the relevant laws which pertain to the posted video, and then give a brief legal analysis of it.

1.) Expectation of Privacy - During the execution of a law enforcement officers execution of his duties in ANY public setting, he has absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy, and ergo, any and all of his/her actions in the performance of his/her duties may be captured by picture,video,and audio, so long as it is in a public venue. This same reasoning applies to any private citizen who is in a public venue as well.

2.) Obstruction of Justice - No person may interfere with the duties of a law enforcement officer, while they are performing an investigation, detainment, or other official duty. A person who does so can be charged with obstruction. In order to do so, a person must be directly obstructing the duties of that officer.

3.) Failure to Obey a Lawful Order - All citizens must obey lawful orders by the police. Now, the status quo, is to obey lawful orders from the police, even when they are essentially NOT LAWFUL. That is to say, if the police officer is in the wrong, it is usually prudent to still comply with the officers order. We have a saying "Argue points of law in the courtroom, not in the streets.

So those are the three basic points of law that we need understand to discuss this case, as well as the issues of reasonable expectations of privacy.

In so far as this video is concerned. The officer had no reasonable expectation of privacy. He was on a public road, in plain sight of several houses and the public in general, and therefore he had no reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore all of his actions could be videotaped and recorded by any private citizen or even news organization, so long as they were a sufficient enough distance away, not obstructing traffic, etc. In this case, the woman in question did seem to be a sufficent enough distance away, she was standing on private property (her own), and I believe a court of law would agree that her actions posed absolutely no threat to the officers performing their duties. She was not obstructive their investigation, as her distance was sufficient to pose no threat to the officers, and no obstruction to the investgation.

He did however, give her a lawful order to go back into her house, alledging that he felt threatened. My legal opinion and advice, would have been for her to return to the porch of her home, and to continue videotaping from a distance, and to comply with the lawful order. It would then be up to the officer to try and articulate in a court of law, the various reasons that he felt his safety was threatened by a private citizen standing a safe distance away videotaping his actions. I believe that there is a good chance the court would have ruled in favor of the citizen, and still may in this case. But the point is to always obey lawful orders from the police, whether they have any legal merit or not, and to argue such points in a court of law, NEVER on the side of the road.

In the past 5 years or so, there have been tremendous abuses in various states with "Two Party Consent" as it pertains to anti-wire tapping laws, in order to prosecute private citizens for videotaping the actions of police officers, if they are recording audio in addition to video. In states where BOTH parties must consent to their audio being recorded, police have arrested private citizens for videotaping (or more accureately recording with sound) the police without the officers consent. There is absoultely no justifiable reason for this, other then to stifle and deter scrutiny of police action, and you can see such cases that have occured in Maryland, particularly one instance where the Maryland State Troopers raided the home of a National Guardsmen who was pulled over on his motorcycle for speeding, later posted the video on YouTube, and several weeks later when the State Troopers learned of this video, his home was raided by the SWAT team, his computers and other digital recording devices confiscated, and he was charged with illegal wiretapping.

Clearly, the authors of the law did not have in mind, persecution of private citizens for perfectly legal scrutiny of police officers in their official capacity, when they authored the law.

So, I would conclude that the actions of the woman in the video were perfectly legal, and that any such actions by private citizens where they videotape the police in their official capacity, should be WELCOMED by law enforcement, and that there is no legal justification for wanting to stifle scrutinary of law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-tech...cuted-videotap

Wrongful Charges Dropped Against Motorcyclist Prosecuted for Videotaping Encounter with Police E-mail
September 27, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [email protected]

BALTIMORE, MD – Vindicating the First Amendment right to document what public officials say and do, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland applauded Harford County Circuit Judge Emory A. Plitt Jr's decision today to dismiss all of the wiretapping charges against Anthony Graber. The Maryland State Police had charged Graber with violating Maryland's wiretap statute, a felony, after he posted on YouTube a video and audio recording of his encounter with a state trooper in plain clothes who stopped him for a traffic violation with his gun drawn.

In today's decision, Judge Plitt ruled: "Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. "Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes" ("Who watches the watchmen?").

"Today is a banner day for our First Amendment rights," said David Rocah, staff attorney for the ACLU of Maryland. "The ACLU has long been concerned about improper police threats that Maryland's wiretap law prevents citizens from recording their encounters with law enforcement. This ruling upholds the fundamental right to hold police accountable to the public and constitutional principles they serve."

As to the wiretapping charges (contained in Counts one and two, which alleged the interception and dissemination of a "private conversation"), Judge Plitt found that police have no expectation of privacy in their public, on-the-job communications, and thus held Graber's conduct could not be a crime: "The encounter in this case took place on a public highway in full view of the public. Under such circumstances, I cannot, by any stretch, conclude that the Troopers has any reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation with the Defendant which society would be prepared to recognize as reasonable."

As to Count three, which alleged that Anthony had possessed a "device primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of oral communications (referring to the video camera mounted on the top of his helmet), the Judge found that the Indictment failed to establish that Anthony possessed any such device. The Judge noted that under the State's theory of which devices were prohibited under the statute, his own pocket size recorder would be illegal, as would "almost every cell phone, Blackberry, and every similar device, not to mention dictation equipment and other types of recording devices."

Finally, the Judge concluded that Count seven, which alleged a violation of a law prohibiting the intent to film a traffic violation, should also be dismissed because the statute was facially unconstitutional in that it criminalized otherwise protected activity (filming public activity).

Joshua Treem, a partner at Shulman, Treem, Kaminkow & Gilden, and one of the pro bono lawyers for Graber, said that Judge Plitt's opinion "implicitly recognizes the danger that can flow from giving police and prosecutors the unrestrained ability to bring these types of prosecutions, and quite appropriately clarifies that they are improper."

John Stewart, a Partner at Crowell & Moring, and another pro bono counsel for Graber said, "Today's opinion is consistent with opinions from around the country that have protected citizen's ability to record and document what public officials do, and that ability is central to a free society."

On March 5, 2010, Anthony Graber was riding his motorcycle on Interstate 95, and was confronted by a plainclothes Maryland State Police trooper as he came to a stop at an exit. Graber had a video camera prominently mounted on his helmet to record his ride, and the camera recorded the officer's actions and statements at the outset of the encounter, which ended with Graber receiving a ticket for speeding. Five days later, Graber posted a video on YouTube showing the encounter, in which the state trooper leaps out of his unmarked vehicle, not in a uniform, and with his gun drawn, yelling at Graber for several seconds to get off of his motorcycle before identifying himself as a police officer.

On April 7, after seeing the video online, the State Police obtained an arrest warrant charging Graber with a violation of the state wiretap law. Based on the wiretap charges, the State Police also obtained a search warrant authorizing them to seize all of the Graber family's computers, hard drives, and thumb drives, along with Graber's video camera. Several weeks later, the Harford County State's Attorney obtained a grand jury indictment adding several additional motor vehicle charges, and additional wiretap violations, including one alleging possession of "a device . . . primarily useful for the purpose of surreptitious interception of oral communications," referring to the widely sold and clearly noticeable video camera that had been mounted on Graber's motorcycle helmet.

The ACLU believes that police officers doing their jobs in a public place, such as an interstate highway, cannot reasonably claim that their communications are private. This is especially true for highway stops, since many police departments – including the Maryland State Police – record the stops themselves.

Graber, a Staff Sergeant in the Maryland Air National Guard, and a computer systems engineer, had faced up to 16 years in prison if convicted on all of the charges, along with the loss of his job if convicted of any of the wiretap charges, each of which was a felony with a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Graber lives in Harford County with his wife and two young children.

Graber was represented by pro bono lawyers Joshua Treem, David Weinstein, and Nicholas Vitek at Schulman, Treem, Kaminkow & Gilden in Baltimore, John Stewart, Ann Mace, and Cynthia Kendrick at Crowell & Moring in Washington, D.C., and David Rocah at the ACLU of Maryland.

To read the decision and see additional information about the case and the legal issues, go to: http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2...10_Graber.html

The YouTube video can be found online: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ or www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7PC9cZEWCQ&NR=1

[thegodfather]

Furthermore, in an act of BLATANT HARASSMENT, the Rochester Police Department dispatched 4 cruisers to a gathering in support of the woman arrested for videotaping the Rochester PD. They came armed with 12 inch rulers, to give parking tickets to any vehicle parked 12 inches from the curb. Now, this is perfectly legal, technically. However, the preponderance of evidence points towards this being a selective prosecution of an individual who is threatening to sue the police department for wrong doing. Additionally, if counsel for the Plaintiff (The videotaper) in this case, can show that such enforcement actions are not a REGULAR practice of the Rochester Police Department, it will not be hard to prove harassment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ8f8KbAbMY

[zaggahamma]

There is so much poor information in this thread, so please allow me to interject with some degree of reason, and give the perspective of someone who has a background with constitutional law and interpretation. I'm going to give a legal analysis of the situation, rather then allow emotion and anectdotal evidence to cloud my judgement in my response, as has been the case in 99% of these responses so far.

Thus far, the two types of responses we have seen have been either
A) "The anecdote" - A poster has had a bad experience during contact with law enforcement, and thus expresses their displeasure through a retelling of their bad experience, an applies a sweeping generalization to this situation we have witnessed.

and

B) "The friend/co-worker/experience as LE"- A poster who is either intimately involved with someone in law enforcement (friendship, significant other,etc), or someone who works in law enforcement in some capacity, and thus is advocating for the police. Using phrases such as "its a thankless job," "if you had to deal with what they have to deal with on a daily basis," etc and so on.

Unfortunately, neither case makes your viewpoint any less valid, in so far as you have a deep seated belief that you are right, however, empirically the law agrees with neither of you. While it is true that law enforcement is a thankless job, law enforcement officers must operate within the boundary of the laws of the land regardless of their own "feelings" about said laws and whether they argee with them or not. Likewise, private citizens must operate within the limits of the law, and abide by them regardless of their own feelings about those laws as well.

As a law enforcement officer and public servant, when you perform your duties, you are subjected to public scrutiny. So I will list in a numbered format, the relevant laws which pertain to the posted video, and then give a brief legal analysis of it.

1.) Expectation of Privacy - During the execution of a law enforcement officers execution of his duties in ANY public setting, he has absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy, and ergo, any and all of his/her actions in the performance of his/her duties may be captured by picture,video,and audio, so long as it is in a public venue. This same reasoning applies to any private citizen who is in a public venue as well.

2.) Obstruction of Justice - No person may interfere with the duties of a law enforcement officer, while they are performing an investigation, detainment, or other official duty. A person who does so can be charged with obstruction. In order to do so, a person must be directly obstructing the duties of that officer.

3.) Failure to Obey a Lawful Order - All citizens must obey lawful orders by the police. Now, the status quo, is to obey lawful orders from the police, even when they are essentially NOT LAWFUL. That is to say, if the police officer is in the wrong, it is usually prudent to still comply with the officers order. We have a saying "Argue points of law in the courtroom, not in the streets.

So those are the three basic points of law that we need understand to discuss this case, as well as the issues of reasonable expectations of privacy.

In so far as this video is concerned. The officer had no reasonable expectation of privacy. He was on a public road, in plain sight of several houses and the public in general, and therefore he had no reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore all of his actions could be videotaped and recorded by any private citizen or even news organization, so long as they were a sufficient enough distance away, not obstructing traffic, etc. In this case, the woman in question did seem to be a sufficent enough distance away, she was standing on private property (her own), and I believe a court of law would agree that her actions posed absolutely no threat to the officers performing their duties. She was not obstructive their investigation, as her distance was sufficient to pose no threat to the officers, and no obstruction to the investgation.

He did however, give her a lawful order to go back into her house, alledging that he felt threatened. My legal opinion and advice, would have been for her to return to the porch of her home, and to continue videotaping from a distance, and to comply with the lawful order. It would then be up to the officer to try and articulate in a court of law, the various reasons that he felt his safety was threatened by a private citizen standing a safe distance away videotaping his actions. I believe that there is a good chance the court would have ruled in favor of the citizen, and still may in this case. But the point is to always obey lawful orders from the police, whether they have any legal merit or not, and to argue such points in a court of law, NEVER on the side of the road.

In the past 5 years or so, there have been tremendous abuses in various states with "Two Party Consent" as it pertains to anti-wire tapping laws, in order to prosecute private citizens for videotaping the actions of police officers, if they are recording audio in addition to video. In states where BOTH parties must consent to their audio being recorded, police have arrested private citizens for videotaping (or more accureately recording with sound) the police without the officers consent. There is absoultely no justifiable reason for this, other then to stifle and deter scrutiny of police action, and you can see such cases that have occured in Maryland, particularly one instance where the Maryland State Troopers raided the home of a National Guardsmen who was pulled over on his motorcycle for speeding, later posted the video on YouTube, and several weeks later when the State Troopers learned of this video, his home was raided by the SWAT team, his computers and other digital recording devices confiscated, and he was charged with illegal wiretapping.

Clearly, the authors of the law did not have in mind, persecution of private citizens for perfectly legal scrutiny of police officers in their official capacity, when they authored the law.

So, I would conclude that the actions of the woman in the video were perfectly legal, and that any such actions by private citizens where they videotape the police in their official capacity, should be WELCOMED by law enforcement, and that there is no legal justification for wanting to stifle scrutinary of law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties.

i think this(bold) is what the op and everyone in agreance GUESSED was to be the case and agree with...whether we worded it as diligintly and we all respect your knowledge around here...

but i see you added that you advised that the lady still should have obliged the officer and backed off more less distance wise

[chumpster]

^^^ Sorry i disagree. you dont earn my respect by passing a test and pinning on a badge. You have to earn it like anyone else.
I've never had a good experience with a cop or a cop that actually helped me. I've had some bad run ins with cops that were seriously not my fault and both cops should have been arrested.

Yea, cops are often thugs, and should be held to a higher standard. Lots of brutes choose to be cops for a reason, which could be excitement, thrill, and some just want to bash heads and power trip on people. Young cops are often the most guilty of this. I was sitting next to some state troopers in a restaurant and these guys were throwing around frat boy jokes about which of them was gay and like butt f***ing little boys. I wanted to beat the shit out of them then and there. Cops seriously need better psych screens, and yearly checkups on policies by the DOJ.

[oscarjones]

FVCK the popos

[dmk327]

Hey hey hey... Be nice to the police... You might never know when your in the mood for a good baton beatdown on an LA freeway

[Lemonada8]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4qxH...feature=fvwrel

Gotta love my home town cops

[gixxerboy1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4qxH...feature=fvwrel

Gotta love my home town cops

what she just wanted to show him her tities

[gjames2012]

im inschool for criminal justice right now and the most cops that i see in training are the most loyal and genuine guys youve ever seen. they know noone and still risk there lives for the safety of everyone. even poor minded people who want to stereotype the cops because one messed up. there will always be and always has been someone who will abuse there power. if you dont like encounters with the police then obey the laws! if you dont like the laws then become a senator and do something about it! other than that shut up with stupid comments. ill bet i know who you run for when you get robbed or someone pulls a pistol now dont we!!!!!!

[Lemonada8]

I truly believe you on that point but it's not how they start out it's If they can handle the everyday stress of being disrespected to on small stupid stuff that eventually wears on people, IMO it's one of the hardest jobs cuz of the physical demands and the lack of community respect from a certain few that makes life he**.
Just a perk of being a public servant nowadays is that rarely do they get the respect they deserve.

[zaggahamma]

im inschool for criminal justice right now and the most cops that i see in training are the most loyal and genuine guys youve ever seen. they know noone and still risk there lives for the safety of everyone. even poor minded people who want to stereotype the cops because one messed up. there will always be and always has been someone who will abuse there power. if you dont like encounters with the police then obey the laws! if you dont like the laws then become a senator and do something about it! other than that shut up with stupid comments. ill bet i know who you run for when you get robbed or someone pulls a pistol now dont we!!!!!!

most posts in this thread didnt sterotype...most posted based on what happened...i dont like your segue into making it looked like what the cops did was justified....do you have an opinion on what happened (the subject of the thread)?

[brad1986]

[QUOTE=gjames2012;5719476]im inschool for criminal justice right now and the most cops that i see in training are the most loyal and genuine guys youve ever seen. they know noone and still risk there lives for the safety of everyone. even poor minded people who want to stereotype the cops because one messed up. there will always be and always has been someone who will abuse there power. if you dont like encounters with the police then obey the laws! if you dont like the laws then become a senator and do something about it! other than that shut up with stupid comments. ill bet i know who you run for when you get robbed or someone pulls a pistol now dont we!!!!!![/QUOTE]

IDk who your thinkning about because it def wouldnt be the police. What are the police going to do to change what already happened?? Its called the 2nd amendment right... thats all the enforcment i need. My tax dollars need to quit being wasted on bs like war on drugs and raiding pot farms. IT IS YOU (cops)THAT ENFORCE LAWS YOU DONT AGREE WITH. How is there any honor in that?

[Lemonada8]

^^ it's the job to do it. Many professions have the employees do stuff they don't agree with.

[brad1986]

^^ it's the job to do it. Many professions have the employees do stuff they don't agree with.

I think disagreing about the price tag on an item or how the buisness is structured in a regular job is much different than taking sombody to jail and them possibly losing there job just cuz "its your job" We choose are jobs so its not like they didnt/dont have a choice in the matter

[Lemonada8]

well not business people, but service professionals. Doctors, lawyers, vets, and others all do the job because they like it but there are times where they dont want to help someone because of certain reasons but they still have to due to their job. Do you think ER docs wanna always patch up some illegal gangbanger that was shot, or actually have to 'help' drug seekers that know how to get their fix and then they walk out? or a lawyer repping someone they think is guilty and should do the time, but they still have to try their best to help them out...

the thing is you dont fight with police on the streets, you do it in the courts. Plain and simple. Everytime i had a run-in with the law, you just listen and they usually are pretty cool about stuff, and if you really have a issue you take them to court and royally F them! Fighting with a cop on the streets, no matter the situation, you will ALWAYS lose in one way or another

[brad1986]

well not business people, but service professionals. Doctors, lawyers, vets, and others all do the job because they like it but there are times where they dont want to help someone because of certain reasons but they still have to due to their job. Do you think ER docs wanna always patch up some illegal gangbanger that was shot, or actually have to 'help' drug seekers that know how to get their fix and then they walk out? or a lawyer repping someone they think is guilty and should do the time, but they still have to try their best to help them out...

the thing is you dont fight with police on the streets, you do it in the courts. Plain and simple. Everytime i had a run-in with the law, you just listen and they usually are pretty cool about stuff, and if you really have a issue you take them to court and royally F them! Fighting with a cop on the streets, no matter the situation, you will ALWAYS lose in one way or another

This is a true statement but yet I cant help myself. I show every man respect and expect the same in return but when i am disrespected its on and crackin. Jail doesnt bother me at all its being puncked that i cant stand

[zaggahamma]

getting off track....how people that want to argue but have no arguement try to segue...

isnt the topic police brutality...is it ok for a cop to smash somebody's skull in for stealing a loaf of bread???????????????

[zaggahamma]

yes segue is my word for the week

[gixxerboy1]

getting off track....how people that want to argue but have no arguement try to segue...

isnt the topic police brutality...is it ok for a cop to smash somebody's skull in for stealing a loaf of bread???????????????

what kind of bread?

[Lemonada8]

lol thank god for chrome, i just had to select-google it :P

and who knows, things tend to go off on weird tangents.

yes tangents is my word for the week :P

[zaggahamma]

well didnt the guys face look like pumpernickel after justice was served