Define "asshole".lowing wrote:
I give cops a lot of latitude when dealing with assholes.
All She Had To Do Was Show Id. Thats It. She Is A Dumbass. Just Listen To The Police And Everything Will Be Fine.
HAHa , dum bitch got tazred. lol
ANother post should read For those who ALWAYS blame the cops for EVERYTHING no matter what even if they were NOT THERE.
The fact that cops do have the right to use force when the situation warrants it still does not excuse some of them from overusing it. Even if it isn't lethal, it can still be cruel.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-18 23:30:21)
Like cuffing someone then attaching the taser to their balls because they were cursing or looking at you threateningly...unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The fact that cops do have the right to use force when the situation warrants it still does not excuse some of them from overusing it. Even if it isn't lethal, it can still be cruel.
So long as they film it, that counts as entertainment, and is subject to Hollywood law, excusing all parties on the condition that it was funny. And it often is.
Ok, I'm a pawn. Yes this may happen but a utopia will never be achieved. These kind of situations will always happen.Dec45 wrote:
Um no... I'm not going to 'get over' people breaking the intent of the constitution. How about you 'get over' the fact some people like their freedoms preserved. It is not hardly seen in the modern world. It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about for one thing, and secondly you're accepting the revocation of inalienable rights. You're a pawn. Don't try and rub off on me...teddy..jimmy wrote:
This situation that you have posted is a situation hardly seen in the modern world. It happens, get over it.Dec45 wrote:
Ask yourself if that's reason to accept the alienation of someone's rights. Logical fallacy, buddy.
WOW, your protesting on a battlefield 2 forum site. Show me a vid of you protesting infront of the whitehouse and my respect for you will rise.you're accepting the revocation of inalienable rights.
People with lack of respect for the law or authority, or the life liberty and pursuit of happiness of others.Bubbalo wrote:
Define "asshole".lowing wrote:
I give cops a lot of latitude when dealing with assholes.
Oh, and the fucker that stole my parking spot at Wal-Mart.
Sure, let me drop my life real quick, pack my bags and fly over to Washington.....teddy..jimmy wrote:
Ok, I'm a pawn. Yes this may happen but a utopia will never be achieved. These kind of situations will always happen.Dec45 wrote:
Um no... I'm not going to 'get over' people breaking the intent of the constitution. How about you 'get over' the fact some people like their freedoms preserved. It is not hardly seen in the modern world. It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about for one thing, and secondly you're accepting the revocation of inalienable rights. You're a pawn. Don't try and rub off on me...teddy..jimmy wrote:
This situation that you have posted is a situation hardly seen in the modern world. It happens, get over it.WOW, your protesting on a battlefield 2 forum site. Show me a vid of you protesting infront of the whitehouse and my respect for you will rise.you're accepting the revocation of inalienable rights.
Sorry, I don't live in fantasy money world...
Utopia and my opinion of what those cops should've done, is not synonymous.
Yeah, I'm sure you know all about what cops do in lower class neighborhoods. Ironic that a lot of times them NOT being there, is a serious and intentional problem.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
ANother post should read For those who ALWAYS blame the cops for EVERYTHING no matter what even if they were NOT THERE.
And how are police going to identify these people? How will they be proven to be so in court?lowing wrote:
People with lack of respect for the law or authority, or the life liberty and pursuit of happiness of others.
That is why they call it police training. Watch an episode of cops to find out.Bubbalo wrote:
And how are police going to identify these people? How will they be proven to be so in court?lowing wrote:
People with lack of respect for the law or authority, or the life liberty and pursuit of happiness of others.
So whoever a cop says is an asshole is an asshole? What if two cops disagree?
Generally in the military they rotate soldiers in and out of combat duty 6, 12, 24 months. In rare exceptions, like WW2, longer. Why? The constant threat of maiming or death changes peoples' mental processes.
Cops have the same threat for years maybe a decade or more. So take a police officer who is trained to gain and maintain "control" over another human being while keeping control of himself, attempting to preempt any chance of threat. Add authority and a subject who doesn't like to be told what to do and you have a potential abuse problem.
We see the results in situations like the UCLA video. But what we never see are the 10,000 times more situations that wind up smoothly handled and diffused with good citizens and officers dealing with it.
Forming an opinion with only the complainers being counted is kind of, well...idk...popular I guess.
Cops have the same threat for years maybe a decade or more. So take a police officer who is trained to gain and maintain "control" over another human being while keeping control of himself, attempting to preempt any chance of threat. Add authority and a subject who doesn't like to be told what to do and you have a potential abuse problem.
We see the results in situations like the UCLA video. But what we never see are the 10,000 times more situations that wind up smoothly handled and diffused with good citizens and officers dealing with it.
Forming an opinion with only the complainers being counted is kind of, well...idk...popular I guess.
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-11-19 21:25:45)
We also never see the 10,000 times more occurrences that aren't on film.OpsChief wrote:
Generally in the military they rotate soldiers in and out of combat duty 6, 12, 24 months. In rare exceptions, like WW2, longer. Why? The constant threat of maiming or death changes peoples' mental processes.
Cops have the same threat for years maybe a decade or more. So take a police officer who is trained to gain and maintain "control" over another human being while keeping control of himself, attempting to preempt any chance of threat. Add authority and a subject who doesn't like to be told what to do and you have a potential abuse problem.
We see the results in situations like the UCLA video. But what we never see are the 10,000 times more situations that wind up smoothly handled and diffused with good citizens and officers dealing with it.
Forming an opinion with only the complainers being counted is kind of, well...idk...popular I guess.
I once saw a brief breakdown of these stats on CSPAN I think it was, I don't trust my memory to send you to the bank with my numbers but.... In various cities/states in the US between 5-9% of arrests also have "excessive force" complaints filed.Dec45 wrote:
We also never see the 10,000 times more occurrences that aren't on film.OpsChief wrote:
Generally in the military they rotate soldiers in and out of combat duty 6, 12, 24 months. In rare exceptions, like WW2, longer. Why? The constant threat of maiming or death changes peoples' mental processes.
Cops have the same threat for years maybe a decade or more. So take a police officer who is trained to gain and maintain "control" over another human being while keeping control of himself, attempting to preempt any chance of threat. Add authority and a subject who doesn't like to be told what to do and you have a potential abuse problem.
We see the results in situations like the UCLA video. But what we never see are the 10,000 times more situations that wind up smoothly handled and diffused with good citizens and officers dealing with it.
Forming an opinion with only the complainers being counted is kind of, well...idk...popular I guess.
California in 2005 for example had 1,508,210 filed arrests. That would mean 70-120k abuse cases (filed not convicted) http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/cand … ble16.pdf. The 5-9% I got from scanning several sites. Of those complaints some ranged from bruises due to handcuffs and bumps on the head going in the back seat of a patrol car to a much smaller number of open beatings/shootings etc. Unfortunately I found no single site that broke it all down and none that compared all factors of the arrests.
No Sir I think your 10,000 times more number of unfilmed abuses idea will fail because there can't be more incidents of arrest abuse than there are arrests.
Maybe someone with search engine mastery can call up the stats in one massive, hopefully neutral lol if even possible site. If there is such a ubiquitous problem of abuse I don't want to hear OPOs (other peoples' opinions) about it. Just show me the data, I can add.
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-11-19 22:43:04)
OK, I guess its time for me to chime in. I'm a Sheriff's deputy. Badge and the whole nine yards. Now, I am not a patrol or investigations officer, I'm a medic and rescue diver, but I work with those who are on a daily basis. And let me tell you, its about as shitty a job as exists.
Despite what those here want you to believe, motor vehicle checkpoints ARE legal. Depending on state law, they are either sobriety checkpoints, or vehicle registration checkpoints. They have been found legal by the Supreme Court [Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 (1990)], as well as have a foundation in case law with almost every state (see this site for more details).
This woman broke the law. There is no constitutional right to drive a car. That privilege is granted by the state government, and there are strings attached. Sobriety checkpoints are one of those strings.
If a police officer asks you to identify yourself, you are legally obligated to do it. To not do so is the very definition of obstruction of justice. She broke the law. She got arrested. If she'd handed over her license, registration, and proof of insurance like she is LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO, she wouldn't have had this problem.
Despite what those here want you to believe, motor vehicle checkpoints ARE legal. Depending on state law, they are either sobriety checkpoints, or vehicle registration checkpoints. They have been found legal by the Supreme Court [Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 (1990)], as well as have a foundation in case law with almost every state (see this site for more details).
This woman broke the law. There is no constitutional right to drive a car. That privilege is granted by the state government, and there are strings attached. Sobriety checkpoints are one of those strings.
If a police officer asks you to identify yourself, you are legally obligated to do it. To not do so is the very definition of obstruction of justice. She broke the law. She got arrested. If she'd handed over her license, registration, and proof of insurance like she is LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO, she wouldn't have had this problem.
I think you'd be surprised at how many cases don't go to court, and end up in pleas. You'd also be surprised to find that because of that, many times excessive abuse is involved, and no one goes to court and files over it.OpsChief wrote:
I once saw a brief breakdown of these stats on CSPAN I think it was, I don't trust my memory to send you to the bank with my numbers but.... In various cities/states in the US between 5-9% of arrests also have "excessive force" complaints filed.Dec45 wrote:
We also never see the 10,000 times more occurrences that aren't on film.OpsChief wrote:
Generally in the military they rotate soldiers in and out of combat duty 6, 12, 24 months. In rare exceptions, like WW2, longer. Why? The constant threat of maiming or death changes peoples' mental processes.
Cops have the same threat for years maybe a decade or more. So take a police officer who is trained to gain and maintain "control" over another human being while keeping control of himself, attempting to preempt any chance of threat. Add authority and a subject who doesn't like to be told what to do and you have a potential abuse problem.
We see the results in situations like the UCLA video. But what we never see are the 10,000 times more situations that wind up smoothly handled and diffused with good citizens and officers dealing with it.
Forming an opinion with only the complainers being counted is kind of, well...idk...popular I guess.
California in 2005 for example had 1,508,210 filed arrests. That would mean 70-120k abuse cases (filed not convicted) http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/cand … ble16.pdf. The 5-9% I got from scanning several sites. Of those complaints some ranged from bruises due to handcuffs and bumps on the head going in the back seat of a patrol car to a much smaller number of open beatings/shootings etc. Unfortunately I found no single site that broke it all down and none that compared all factors of the arrests.
No Sir I think your 10,000 times more number of unfilmed abuses idea will fail because there can't be more incidents of arrest abuse than there are arrests.
Maybe someone with search engine mastery can call up the stats in one massive, hopefully neutral lol if even possible site. If there is such a ubiquitous problem of abuse I don't want to hear OPOs (other peoples' opinions) about it. Just show me the data, I can add.
That's funny, because I saw many other cars drive by the checkpoint from the daytime when the video starts, to the night time when the video ends. It was completely random. It was not anything like a sobriety checkpoint.blisteringsilence wrote:
OK, I guess its time for me to chime in. I'm a Sheriff's deputy. Badge and the whole nine yards. Now, I am not a patrol or investigations officer, I'm a medic and rescue diver, but I work with those who are on a daily basis. And let me tell you, its about as shitty a job as exists.
Despite what those here want you to believe, motor vehicle checkpoints ARE legal. Depending on state law, they are either sobriety checkpoints, or vehicle registration checkpoints. They have been found legal by the Supreme Court [Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 (1990)], as well as have a foundation in case law with almost every state (see this site for more details).
This woman broke the law. There is no constitutional right to drive a car. That privilege is granted by the state government, and there are strings attached. Sobriety checkpoints are one of those strings.
If a police officer asks you to identify yourself, you are legally obligated to do it. To not do so is the very definition of obstruction of justice. She broke the law. She got arrested. If she'd handed over her license, registration, and proof of insurance like she is LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO, she wouldn't have had this problem.
The Sobriety Checkpoint was just one example no? Why can't police randomly check for no license/insurance or unsafe vehicles? Or Amber Alert perimeters? What is the Abuse of Power here?Dec45 wrote:
That's funny, because I saw many other cars drive by the checkpoint from the daytime when the video starts, to the night time when the video ends. It was completely random. It was not anything like a sobriety checkpoint.blisteringsilence wrote:
OK, I guess its time for me to chime in. I'm a Sheriff's deputy. Badge and the whole nine yards. Now, I am not a patrol or investigations officer, I'm a medic and rescue diver, but I work with those who are on a daily basis. And let me tell you, its about as shitty a job as exists.
Despite what those here want you to believe, motor vehicle checkpoints ARE legal. Depending on state law, they are either sobriety checkpoints, or vehicle registration checkpoints. They have been found legal by the Supreme Court [Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 (1990)], as well as have a foundation in case law with almost every state (see this site for more details).
This woman broke the law. There is no constitutional right to drive a car. That privilege is granted by the state government, and there are strings attached. Sobriety checkpoints are one of those strings.
If a police officer asks you to identify yourself, you are legally obligated to do it. To not do so is the very definition of obstruction of justice. She broke the law. She got arrested. If she'd handed over her license, registration, and proof of insurance like she is LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO, she wouldn't have had this problem.
Having been stopped over the years maybe 40 times I have never experienced an abusive officer - they tend to respond well to "yes Sir" "yes Ma'am" and straight talk. Almost everyone gets upset when it's "FU MOFO it's a free country and I should be able to yak yak yak". If you are the perpetrator and get stopped don't blame the cops lol that drama should be left to Made for TV Movies.
I bet I would not be remotely surprised. I think the complaints are also likely suspect in validity. The unreported/unfiled events may be because the person knew they were wrong and didn't want to blow things out of proportion.Dec45 wrote:
I think you'd be surprised at how many cases don't go to court, and end up in pleas. You'd also be surprised to find that because of that, many times excessive abuse is involved, and no one goes to court and files over it.OpsChief wrote:
I once saw a brief breakdown of these stats on CSPAN I think it was, I don't trust my memory to send you to the bank with my numbers but.... In various cities/states in the US between 5-9% of arrests also have "excessive force" complaints filed.Dec45 wrote:
We also never see the 10,000 times more occurrences that aren't on film.
California in 2005 for example had 1,508,210 filed arrests. That would mean 70-120k abuse cases (filed not convicted) http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/cand … ble16.pdf. The 5-9% I got from scanning several sites. Of those complaints some ranged from bruises due to handcuffs and bumps on the head going in the back seat of a patrol car to a much smaller number of open beatings/shootings etc. Unfortunately I found no single site that broke it all down and none that compared all factors of the arrests.
No Sir I think your 10,000 times more number of unfilmed abuses idea will fail because there can't be more incidents of arrest abuse than there are arrests.
Maybe someone with search engine mastery can call up the stats in one massive, hopefully neutral lol if even possible site. If there is such a ubiquitous problem of abuse I don't want to hear OPOs (other peoples' opinions) about it. Just show me the data, I can add.
Whats with the WWF narration?
Have you ever been in a sobriety checkpoint? You don't stop every car. Hell, you're doing well to stop every 8th car.Dec45 wrote:
That's funny, because I saw many other cars drive by the checkpoint from the daytime when the video starts, to the night time when the video ends. It was completely random. It was not anything like a sobriety checkpoint.blisteringsilence wrote:
OK, I guess its time for me to chime in. I'm a Sheriff's deputy. Badge and the whole nine yards. Now, I am not a patrol or investigations officer, I'm a medic and rescue diver, but I work with those who are on a daily basis. And let me tell you, its about as shitty a job as exists.
Despite what those here want you to believe, motor vehicle checkpoints ARE legal. Depending on state law, they are either sobriety checkpoints, or vehicle registration checkpoints. They have been found legal by the Supreme Court [Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 US 444 (1990)], as well as have a foundation in case law with almost every state (see this site for more details).
This woman broke the law. There is no constitutional right to drive a car. That privilege is granted by the state government, and there are strings attached. Sobriety checkpoints are one of those strings.
If a police officer asks you to identify yourself, you are legally obligated to do it. To not do so is the very definition of obstruction of justice. She broke the law. She got arrested. If she'd handed over her license, registration, and proof of insurance like she is LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO, she wouldn't have had this problem.
Not to mention, how may cars and officers do you see in that video? I know that we NEVER set up a checkpoint with fewer than 8 officers and 5 cars. Its just not done, its a safety thing.
What it comes down to is you don't see everything that's happening from that single view from the deck of the patrol car. You don't know what else is happening. You can't judge.