Foo - this is why we call them ex-cops

This (http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=5459) really makes me mad.
I really just want to find this cop and beat him within an inch of his life.
Maybe then I'd dump salt on every place I see that he's bleeding.
Then perhaps urinate on him.
You really have no idea how angry seeing this makes me.

What the f?! That's horrible.

I'm venturing a guess that cop was picked on in school.

Why did he even have a camera in the first place?

Holy crap. I hope that prick is fired and charged. That's not just inappropriate, I'm pretty sure it's illegal.

What the heck tripped the cop off?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2715792117793977759

I strongly disagree with the term used in the title. The ex-policeman in question is a complete ass hat though.

This cop = ******bagius maximus.

Deamer, I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but the law allows you to resist unlawful arrest or assault by police officers. You may also intervene when someone else is being unlawfully assaulted or arrested by a cop, whether they ask for your help or not.

Although there is more to it, and this in not legal advice, it can be summed up like this- if there is no probable cause for an arrest, like seeing a crime be committed, eye witness accounts, or information from dispatchers, or some other form of substantial probable cause, an arrest is illegal as it has no legal purpose. Use of force when not warranted by a threat to an officers safety or the safety of those around him or her is a felony in most cases, and it's your right to resist it should it happen to you or someone you happen to so much as see.

Essentially, if you get unlawfully assaulted or detained by police, and you know the police have no legal right to do what they are doing, and you know they know, according to the supreme court it is legal to take any action necessary to neutralize the situation, up to taking an officers life. Of course, 98% of people in the US probably don't have a complete grasp of the laws concerning arrest, so resisting with deadly force would, for most people, be life in prison if not a stupid last stand. But the law is the law, and once in a while it might pay to know it.

As a disclaimer, I would like to point out that I am not anti police, what we are talking about is a tiny, tiny ,tiny problem that most people outside of inner city ghetto areas like Detroit and LA will never experience. I am only pointing out what the law says since you brought it up.

Kid was looking for trouble, and he found it. When I was a teen aged driver (and this is a 20 year old, not a teenager) I had plenty of opportunities to interact with cops. Doesn't take brilliance to not start some crap with a cop.

Cop was out of line, but this kid was looking for trouble. He instigated it, he fostered it, and he harvested it.

2 a.m. in a commuter lot with a camera mounted. Looking for trouble, period.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2715792117793977759

I strongly disagree with the term used in the title. The ex-policeman in question is a complete ass hat though.

Agree!

ass hat

But to lump all these guys and gals in a group like that is not right. I work with too many retired cops, detectives as well as riding with them and the ex SWAT captains ... and they are not like this at all. :(

I would really like to know what the driver was doing in an empty lot witth a camera at 2 a.m. That is just very odd in my book.

I would really like to know what the driver was doing in an empty lot witth a camera at 2 a.m. That is just very odd in my book.

according to him, he was frequently being harassed by police in that town while the police maintain that he has been a nuisance. this is old news.

According to the video the guy did have priors by his own testimony. twahl is correct. The guy was looking for trouble. I've dealt with police before. Lesson #1 is not to give them an attitude. Lesson #2 is answer the questions as politely as possible. Cooperate and the cops will usually leave you alone.

Cops are pigs, it's that simple. They don't deserve to sleep on the ground we walk on or drink from the water I defecate in.

And this is coming from somebody who has/is currently being ****ed by the law from all angles.

Professional behavior is what one should expprect from an officer.

1)License and registration please. A police officer is well within his rights to ask for these and you must produce them. Failure to signal a turn into a lot is grounds for such a stop.

2) You are not compelled to answer any questions beyond establishing your pedigree.( Who you are.)

3) Never give an officer permission to search your car. You may not resist if he does so but never give permission.

4) Do not resist arrest. You will not win this fight and you will bring upon you mucho problemas. Lawyers were created for the puprpose of initiating lawsuits aganst perrennial rookie of the year winners.

5) When stopped stay buckled into seat. Roll down windows and put dome light and hazards on. If pulling off road pull off as far as safely possible. Remove keys from ignition and put them on the dash. Put your hands palm upwards on the steering wheel. Always make sure your your license and registration are in a visible and accessible place when driving. If you are carrying a firearm please follow your statesd laws in making announcements of its presence to an officer. Never make any untoward movements or expose a firearmm as it is a good way to get yourself shot and possiblty killed. I make it a policy to tell the officer I am licensed, carrying, and ask for his instructions.


6) Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1 (1968), argued 12 Dec. 1967, decided 10 June 1968 by vote of 8 to 1; Warren for the Court, Harlan, black, and White concurring, Douglas in dissent. For years police have engaged in an investigative practice commonly referred to as stop and frisk (http://www.answers.com/topic/stop-and-frisk-rule), involving the stopping of a suspicious person or vehicle for purposes of interrogation or other brief investigation, sometimes accompanied by a patting down of the clothing of the suspect to ensure that the person was not armed. Terry was the first in a now‐substantial line of Supreme Court cases recognizing stop and frisk as a valid practice.

In Terry, a policeman became suspicious of two men when one of them walked up the street, peered into a store, walked on, started back, looked into the same store, and then conferred with his companion. The other suspect repeated this ritual, and between them the two men went through this performance about a dozen times before following a third man up the street. The officer, thinking they were “casing” a stickup (http://www.answers.com/topic/stickup) and might be armed, confronted the men, asked their names and patted them down, thereby discovering pistols on Terry (http://www.answers.com/topic/edward-o-connor-terry) and his companion. In affirming Terry's conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, the Supreme Court concluded that “where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot (http://www.answers.com/topic/afoot) and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, … he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him” (p. 30).

This rather cautious holding fell short of resolving all the important legal issues surrounding this practice; many were ultimately answered in subsequent decisions. But Terry did settle two fundamental points: stop and frisk neither falls outside the Fourth (http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-iv-to-the-u-s-constitution) Amendment nor is subject to the usual Fourth Amendment restraints. In rejecting “the notions that the Fourth Amendment does not come into play at all as a limitation upon police conduct if the officers stop short of something called a ‘technical arrest’ or a ‘full‐blown search’” (p. 19), the Court wisely concluded that the protections of the Fourth Amendment are not subject to verbal manipulation. It is the reasonableness of the officer's conduct, not what the state chooses to call it, that counts.

In concluding that a stop and frisk does not require probable (http://www.answers.com/topic/probable-cause) cause, the Court in Terry explained that because the policeman had acted without a warrant his conduct was not to be judged by the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause (which contains an express “probable cause” requirement) but rather “by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures” (p. 20). Dissenting Justice William O. Douglas (http://www.answers.com/topic/william-o-douglas) objected that the majority had held, contrary to earlier rulings of the Court, “that the police have greater authority to make a ‘seizure’ and conduct a ‘search’ than a judge has to authorize such action” (p. 36). Douglas was correct in this, but his point casts into question only some of the reasoning in Terry, not the result.

The Terry result is grounded in the balancing test of Camara v. Municipal Court (1967), which the Court quoted and specifically relied upon. Camara, which concerned the grounds needed to obtain a warrant to conduct a housing inspection, quite clearly involved the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment and its probable cause requirement. Yet the Court adopted a significantly lower probable cause standard for such warrants than is typically required to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, and it did so by “balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entails” (p. 537). It thus makes sense to view Terry as a case in which probable cause is required, albeit a lesser quantum (http://www.answers.com/topic/quanta) of probable cause than is ordinarily needed to justify Fourth Amendment activity because the intrusion into privacy (http://www.answers.com/topic/privacy) and freedom is quite limited and the law enforcement interest being served is substantial.

Under the search part of the Terry doctrine, policy may pat down the detained suspect on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and may then remove any object from the suspect's clothing that by its size or density might be a weapon. An object so discovered is admissible in evidence whether it turns out to be a gun or something else seizable (http://www.answers.com/topic/seize) as contraband or evidence; in Michigan v. Long (http://www.answers.com/topic/michigan-v-long) (1983), the Court rejected the notion that to ensure against pretext frisks only weapons should be admissible. (Long also holds, by rather strained logic, that the protective search allowed by Terry may extend to the passenger compartment of a vehicle to which the suspect has access.)

Remember an unscrupulous officer may "flake" you.(Plant contraband on your person or in your vehicle. Your word against his you know!) Fortunately that is generally the rare exception rather than the rule.

7) Ask the officer if you may leave or if you are under arrest. If you can't leave you are effectively under arrest. You do not have to be read Miranda Rights in order ot be arrested.

8) If you are arrested say nothing. You cannot be convicted for what you don't say. Talking to experienced detectives could have you confessing to the Lindbergh Baby kidnapping. I want to have an attorney ends all converstaions. Period.

Remember that most cops are fairly decent guys and this yahoo is one who gives everyone else a bad name. Cops, contrary to some peoples notions are grenerally the good guys. This Officer should have acted like aprofessional and not like an idiot in a highschool hallway fight.

Just my .02 cents and now I exit the soap box!

Kid was looking for trouble, and he found it. When I was a teen aged driver (and this is a 20 year old, not a teenager) I had plenty of opportunities to interact with cops. Doesn't take brilliance to not start some crap with a cop.

Cop was out of line, but this kid was looking for trouble. He instigated it, he fostered it, and he harvested it.

2 a.m. in a commuter lot with a camera mounted. Looking for trouble, period.

Yeah, cops never do that sort of thing :rolleyes:

That man doesn't deserve the badge he wears...

Professional behavior is what one should expect from an officer.

1)License and registration please. A police officer is well within his rights to ask for these and you must produce them. Failure to signal a turn into a lot is grounds for such a stop.

One thing I must point out, most states do not have stop and ID laws. Unless you've done something to get pulled over, or unless a cop has reasonable suspicion you've committed a crime, there is no legal reason to give a cop your personal information. They have a right to ask, but no right to demand outside of those situations. They don't need it for any reason other than being nosy.

******

Bag

Kid was looking for trouble, and he found it. When I was a teen aged driver (and this is a 20 year old, not a teenager) I had plenty of opportunities to interact with cops. Doesn't take brilliance to not start some crap with a cop.

Cop was out of line, but this kid was looking for trouble. He instigated it, he fostered it, and he harvested it.

2 a.m. in a commuter lot with a camera mounted. Looking for trouble, period.

The cop was looking for trouble too, and don't forget that he threatened to create false charges. The guy sounded like Farva from Supertroopers with his "Come on boy! Give me some more love!" Not to mention the cop was supposedly out of his jurisdiction, although that's a questionable claim.

I would of video taped the cops face. Oh welllllllllll.

Kid was looking for trouble, and he found it. When I was a teen aged driver (and this is a 20 year old, not a teenager) I had plenty of opportunities to interact with cops. Doesn't take brilliance to not start some crap with a cop.

Cop was out of line, but this kid was looking for trouble. He instigated it, he fostered it, and he harvested it.

2 a.m. in a commuter lot with a camera mounted. Looking for trouble, period.

more or less correct, but the cop was supposedly a paid professional, and snapped pretty much from the get go.

doesn't matter, he's no longer a cop.

You need to watch the video again... He did signal the turn thus the stop is invalid.



Professional behavior is what one should expprect from an officer.

1)License and registration please. A police officer is well within his rights to ask for these and you must produce them. Failure to signal a turn into a lot is grounds for such a stop.

2) You are not compelled to answer any questions beyond establishing your pedigree.( Who you are.)

3) Never give an officer permission to search your car. You may not resist if he does so but never give permission.

4) Do not resist arrest. You will not win this fight and you will bring upon you mucho problemas. Lawyers were created for the puprpose of initiating lawsuits aganst perrennial rookie of the year winners.

5) When stopped stay buckled into seat. Roll down windows and put dome light and hazards on. If pulling off road pull off as far as safely possible. Remove keys from ignition and put them on the dash. Put your hands palm upwards on the steering wheel. Always make sure your your license and registration are in a visible and accessible place when driving. If you are carrying a firearm please follow your statesd laws in making announcements of its presence to an officer. Never make any untoward movements or expose a firearmm as it is a good way to get yourself shot and possiblty killed. I make it a policy to tell the officer I am licensed, carrying, and ask for his instructions.


6) Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1 (1968), argued 12 Dec. 1967, decided 10 June 1968 by vote of 8 to 1; Warren for the Court, Harlan, black, and White concurring, Douglas in dissent. For years police have engaged in an investigative practice commonly referred to as stop and frisk (http://www.answers.com/topic/stop-and-frisk-rule), involving the stopping of a suspicious person or vehicle for purposes of interrogation or other brief investigation, sometimes accompanied by a patting down of the clothing of the suspect to ensure that the person was not armed. Terry was the first in a now‐substantial line of Supreme Court cases recognizing stop and frisk as a valid practice.

In Terry, a policeman became suspicious of two men when one of them walked up the street, peered into a store, walked on, started back, looked into the same store, and then conferred with his companion. The other suspect repeated this ritual, and between them the two men went through this performance about a dozen times before following a third man up the street. The officer, thinking they were “casing” a stickup (http://www.answers.com/topic/stickup) and might be armed, confronted the men, asked their names and patted them down, thereby discovering pistols on Terry (http://www.answers.com/topic/edward-o-connor-terry) and his companion. In affirming Terry's conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, the Supreme Court concluded that “where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot (http://www.answers.com/topic/afoot) and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, … he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him” (p. 30).

This rather cautious holding fell short of resolving all the important legal issues surrounding this practice; many were ultimately answered in subsequent decisions. But Terry did settle two fundamental points: stop and frisk neither falls outside the Fourth (http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-iv-to-the-u-s-constitution) Amendment nor is subject to the usual Fourth Amendment restraints. In rejecting “the notions that the Fourth Amendment does not come into play at all as a limitation upon police conduct if the officers stop short of something called a ‘technical arrest’ or a ‘full‐blown search’” (p. 19), the Court wisely concluded that the protections of the Fourth Amendment are not subject to verbal manipulation. It is the reasonableness of the officer's conduct, not what the state chooses to call it, that counts.

In concluding that a stop and frisk does not require probable (http://www.answers.com/topic/probable-cause) cause, the Court in Terry explained that because the policeman had acted without a warrant his conduct was not to be judged by the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause (which contains an express “probable cause” requirement) but rather “by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures” (p. 20). Dissenting Justice William O. Douglas (http://www.answers.com/topic/william-o-douglas) objected that the majority had held, contrary to earlier rulings of the Court, “that the police have greater authority to make a ‘seizure’ and conduct a ‘search’ than a judge has to authorize such action” (p. 36). Douglas was correct in this, but his point casts into question only some of the reasoning in Terry, not the result.

The Terry result is grounded in the balancing test of Camara v. Municipal Court (1967), which the Court quoted and specifically relied upon. Camara, which concerned the grounds needed to obtain a warrant to conduct a housing inspection, quite clearly involved the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment and its probable cause requirement. Yet the Court adopted a significantly lower probable cause standard for such warrants than is typically required to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, and it did so by “balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entails” (p. 537). It thus makes sense to view Terry as a case in which probable cause is required, albeit a lesser quantum (http://www.answers.com/topic/quanta) of probable cause than is ordinarily needed to justify Fourth Amendment activity because the intrusion into privacy (http://www.answers.com/topic/privacy) and freedom is quite limited and the law enforcement interest being served is substantial.

Under the search part of the Terry doctrine, policy may pat down the detained suspect on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and may then remove any object from the suspect's clothing that by its size or density might be a weapon. An object so discovered is admissible in evidence whether it turns out to be a gun or something else seizable (http://www.answers.com/topic/seize) as contraband or evidence; in Michigan v. Long (http://www.answers.com/topic/michigan-v-long) (1983), the Court rejected the notion that to ensure against pretext frisks only weapons should be admissible. (Long also holds, by rather strained logic, that the protective search allowed by Terry may extend to the passenger compartment of a vehicle to which the suspect has access.)

Remember an unscrupulous officer may "flake" you.(Plant contraband on your person or in your vehicle. Your word against his you know!) Fortunately that is generally the rare exception rather than the rule.

7) Ask the officer if you may leave or if you are under arrest. If you can't leave you are effectively under arrest. You do not have to be read Miranda Rights in order ot be arrested.

8) If you are arrested say nothing. You cannot be convicted for what you don't say. Talking to experienced detectives could have you confessing to the Lindbergh Baby kidnapping. I want to have an attorney ends all converstaions. Period.

Remember that most cops are fairly decent guys and this yahoo is one who gives everyone else a bad name. Cops, contrary to some peoples notions are grenerally the good guys. This Officer should have acted like aprofessional and not like an idiot in a highschool hallway fight.

Just my .02 cents and now I exit the soap box!

That is odd. Our cops are a little more like this....

Arj (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4439398057951840441&q=australian+police&total=369&start=30&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8)

You need to watch the video again... He did signal the turn thus the stop is invalid.

I'm not so sure. He did signal a right turn, which the cop kept going on about how he didn't signal a right turn. However I've watched the first few seconds quite a few time and best I can determine, the right turn was onto what appears to be an access or side road, not the lot itself. It looks like he makes a left into the lot with his right turn signal still flashing.

This makes a valid stop. Being in a commuter lot at 2 a.m. can very reasonably be called suspicious activity.

I agree completely that the cop became overbearing very quickly, but he did not create the problem.

For those with the "cops are pigs" attitude, it's no wonder you have issues with them. I feel pretty much the same way about liberals though, so I guess we all have our unreasonable prejudices, eh?

Watch it again. He signals for the right, exicutes the right turn, swashes over the road a bit, the his left hand drops from the top of the wheel to tun the left indicator on, then exicutes the left turn.

The kid is by the book.

Watch it again. He signals for the right, exicutes the right turn, swashes over the road a bit, the his left hand drops from the top of the wheel to tun the left indicator on, then exicutes the left turn.

The kid is by the book.

Yeah I caught that now that I look again. I was looking for a signal on the other side of the speedo, but once you pointed it out it is pretty clear that he switched it over.

If the kid had shut his mouth and given the cop his license it may have turned out different.

Both of them were itching for a fight... not just the cop...

I see it as the kid set a sting for the cop. They had a history of being hardcases and the kid laid a trap.

The kid asked a reasonable question when asked for ID... "Did I do something wrong?" I hope that the US hasn't become that fascist that we must present when challenged with "Your papers, please."

.......................I hope that the US hasn't become that fascist that we must present when challenged with "Your papers, please."Me too. I haven't been stopped for anything in years and have had no problems with law enforcment ever. But, if I am stopped and I don't think I did anything wrong I will politely hand over my DL and ins. verification as I am demanding to know why I'm sitting here with lights flashing in my mirror. And I'm going to want to know now.

If the kid had shut his mouth and given the cop his license it may have turned out different.

Both of them were itching for a fight... not just the cop...

difference is that the cop was paid to "serve and protect".

According to the video the guy did have priors by his own testimony. twahl is correct. The guy was looking for trouble. I've dealt with police before. Lesson #1 is not to give them an attitude. Lesson #2 is answer the questions as politely as possible. Cooperate and the cops will usually leave you alone.

Doesn't matter. If i tell a cop to **** off, he doesn't have the right to threaten me with fake charges.

I'm not so sure. He did signal a right turn, which the cop kept going on about how he didn't signal a right turn. However I've watched the first few seconds quite a few time and best I can determine, the right turn was onto what appears to be an access or side road, not the lot itself. It looks like he makes a left into the lot with his right turn signal still flashing.

This makes a valid stop. Being in a commuter lot at 2 a.m. can very reasonably be called suspicious activity.

I agree completely that the cop became overbearing very quickly, but he did not create the problem.

For those with the "cops are pigs" attitude, it's no wonder you have issues with them. I feel pretty much the same way about liberals though, so I guess we all have our unreasonable prejudices, eh?

I'm glad you made this clear, as I was not quite sure where you stood on the topic. :rolleyes:

I've known good cops, and I've known bad cops. The good cops understand that to "protect and serve" often means setting aside personal biases. The bad cops "protect and serve" as they see it fitting their particular world views. Nothing worse than a cop who is out to "save" the world.

Having said this, I think it would be particularly difficult to be an officer. My bias would be to pull over gas-guzzling SUVs whenever possible. As demonstrated on this thread, most of us have our own biases that we would have to leave behind if we were to be lawful officers.

Picking on the police is too easy to do. But in doing so, we should consider walking a mile in their shoes. On the other hand, expecting lawful behavior from the police is not out of line. In the end, we should be appreciative of what the police do for us, while also expecting the utmost in proper behavior.

Deamer, I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but the law allows you to resist unlawful arrest or assault by police officers. You may also intervene when someone else is being unlawfully assaulted or arrested by a cop, whether they ask for your help or not.

In Illinois this isn't true. Even if you are being arrested illegally you cannot resist. If you resist you might end up helping the officer's case instead of your own.

The stop is legal. He told him initially that he was a suspicious vehicle in an area where they have cars broken into. The crap about the turn signal is just something to argue about.

In Illinois this isn't true. Even if you are being arrested illegally you cannot resist. If you resist you might end up helping the officer's case instead of your own.

The stop is legal. He told him initially that he was a suspicious vehicle in an area where they have cars broken into. The crap about the turn signal is just something to argue about.

The Peoples Republik Of Illinois is a crazy place indeed. But that law is rendered invalid by John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

According to the video the guy did have priors by his own testimony. twahl is correct. The guy was looking for trouble. I've dealt with police before. Lesson #1 is not to give them an attitude. Lesson #2 is answer the questions as politely as possible. Cooperate and the cops will usually leave you alone.

Give the Cops a chance and they will often do more than just leave you alone. They may actually help you.

A few years ago a neighbor called the police and claimed we had someone living in the camper we had parked out front. It was parked there because we had just returned from vacation and were getting stuff back out of it and put away. Cooperated, didn't give the cops any lip when they told me they were not allowed to tell me who made the complaint. Blah Blah ... Oh I invited them to look inside the camper. Caution do not do that if there is any chance there is a bong out.... BTW they declined, saying they didn't need to they were already convinced.

As they were leaving they told me that if the guy had called parking enforcement he would have 'won' the camper would have been towed after 72 hours and that I should check for chalk marks on the tires just in case the guy called parking enforcement next.

Now if I had been just a little bit of a jerk they probebly would not have mentioned this to me. If I had been an @ss they would have gone back to the complaining party and told him there was not anyone living in the camper but that if it bothered him that it was parked on hte street to call parking enforcement. If I had been a real jerk they could have called parking enforcement themselfs.

The Peoples Republik Of Illinois is a crazy place indeed. But that law is rendered invalid by John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

I'm not sure about that case. Here is what I know. I see you walking down the street. I know that you have an active warrant for your arrest because I just checked with my dispatcher and they ran your name and bingo, you have a warrant. I stop and attempt to take you into custody. You struggle with me. I charge you with the resisting arrest. We get to the station and your mother shows up with paperwork showing that you took care of the warrant earlier in the day and it has not been removed from the computer. The warrant arrest is now invalid but the resisting will stand.

I know this is a different scenario than the one in the video but these kinds of things happen everyday.

The stop is legal. He told him initially that he was a suspicious vehicle in an area where they have cars broken into. The crap about the turn signal is just something to argue about.

Driving into an empty lot where cars are broken into is suspicious?

Delicious.


difference is that the cop was paid to "serve and protect".

Paid for by whom?

Driving into an empty lot where cars are broken into is suspicious?
Delicious.

Paid for by whom?

taxpayers. duh.

taxpayers. duh.

Exactly.

That cop was out of line. The kid asked what he did wrong. He is allowed to ask that, and repeatedly, the cop taunted him, calling him boy, and trying to get the kid to do something stupid. That cop knew EXACTLY what he was doing and what he was trying to accomplish.

As for the video camera, that kid's allowed to have one in his car. When I was taking my trip this past september, I had one. The fact that he has priors does not take away his right to have the camera in there.

As a teenager, I was pulled over in the same spot, on three consecutive friday's, by the same cop for speeding. because i was nice, he let me go each time. That being said, i've been in the car with a friend that was nice to the cop, and when he asked what he was being pulled over for, the cop flipped and gave him the same taunting ****, this cop gave the kid. The cop had nothing on my friend, and was trying to get something on him. Period. It's too bad one or two bad apples spoil the bunch.

That cop was out of line. The kid asked what he did wrong. He is allowed to ask that, and repeatedly, the cop taunted him, calling him boy, and trying to get the kid to do something stupid. That cop knew EXACTLY what he was doing and what he was trying to accomplish.

As for the video camera, that kid's allowed to have one in his car. When I was taking my trip this past september, I had one. The fact that he has priors does not take away his right to have the camera in there.

As a teenager, I was pulled over in the same spot, on three consecutive friday's, by the same cop for speeding. because i was nice, he let me go each time. That being said, i've been in the car with a friend that was nice to the cop, and when he asked what he was being pulled over for, the cop flipped and gave him the same taunting ****, this cop gave the kid. The cop had nothing on my friend, and was trying to get something on him. Period. It's too bad one or two bad apples spoil the bunch.

my brother is a lawyer in CT: trust me, it's not just one or two bad apples.

I'm not sure about that case. Here is what I know. I see you walking down the street. I know that you have an active warrant for your arrest because I just checked with my dispatcher and they ran your name and bingo, you have a warrant. I stop and attempt to take you into custody. You struggle with me. I charge you with the resisting arrest. We get to the station and your mother shows up with paperwork showing that you took care of the warrant earlier in the day and it has not been removed from the computer. The warrant arrest is now invalid but the resisting will stand.

I know this is a different scenario than the one in the video but these kinds of things happen everyday.


What you just described is a perfectly reasonable instance of justice at work. There was due proccess all over the place. The slightest amount of probable cause means that an arrest is legal. A warrant is some hefty probable cause. A complaint call about some criminal activity that dispatchers tell police about where a suspect matches your description makes for a very legal arrest. Acting in good faith of a report, whether or not it turns out to be accurate, is the legal obligation of a cop. According to the law, you may only resist when the police act maliciously and outside of the boundaries of the law. Basically, you must know full well that they know they are violating the law.

my brother is a lawyer in CT: trust me, it's not just one or two bad apples.

+1

There are as many bad cops as there are bad fill-in-the-blank in any other profession.

That's what gets me about the people who defend unethical and illegal behavior by cops. By acknowledging the cop's illegal behavior(as clearly demonstrated in this video), you are not condemning the entire police force nationwide. Merely you are admitting that cops are nothing more than human beings, like the rest of the population. Human beings that should be held to the same standard of the law as any other citizen, no more, no less.

..."cops are pigs"...

Agreed. :beer:

There was one person in that video who had an "attitude" problem and its not the 20 year old kid. While I would like to think the cop did have "society's" best interest in mind when he stopped the kid, the speed with which he resorted to frame the kid is scary to say the least. Makes you wonder how many times he practiced it and how much that incites criminal acts against cops.

I am guessing that the cop in the video is going to serve some time for this skirmish. You are supposed to use the law to protect and serve, not abuse it to stoke your ego.

Exactly.

His point was that the cop SHOULD be held to a higher standard of behavior because he's on the job and has a certain amount of trust and authority imbued in him through his position.

The kid went into it expecting problems... but he didn't do anything illegal. The cop abused his position and authority.

I just wonder how many other times the cop did this routine when there WASN'T a video camera present...

Did anyone else notice the friggen radar detector?

Did anyone else notice the friggen radar detector?

And?

Aren't they illegal in most places?

Radar detectors illegal? Maybe in Canada.