Illegally detained and searched

[JoeSparky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEvZBKwvE0k

Thanks Sparky

Who would like to be judged by the actions of the worst of any group?

Please, lets deal with the problems, not create new problems.

Given the Vitriol that has been delivered by this poster, I am at a loss as to how I am expected to respond.

My opinions have not changed.

 

[MAC702]

I don't have the national figures, but, I think we can put together a rough picture of Florida at least...

Per my citations above, in 2009, there were 35,520 sworn officers in Florida. 794 (2%) were disciplined for some reason or another. Of those 794, 44% (349) had their credentials yanked, meaning, in 2009, there were 445 officers who were found guilty of offenses resulting in loss of their credentials. (1% of the total)

In 2008, there were around 18.5 million residents in Florida. There were around 100K inmates housed in Florida prisons, another 100K on some form of state sponsored community supervision. Add another 60K or so for those in County lockups. That takes us to approximately, 260K. Since I can't find the number of Floridians on supervised control for the county level, let's just even things out at 300K. That works out to around 1.6% of the Florida population could be legitimately considered "bad" for the sake of our discussion. I'd say we can call it even with the ratio to bad LEOs which is about exactly what I expected before looking anything up.

There are bad people who do bad things in every walk of life. What they wear and what they do doesn't seem to have much of an impact. We don't treat every citizen as the devil incarnate. So, again, I point out the hypocrisy of doing so with LEOs.

I think it is VERY safe to interpolate that "bad cops" >> "disciplined cops".

As I mentioned, I wish we COULD know the real numbers. The fact that your research shows even a close ratio in disciplined individuals suggests the ACTUAL numbers are greatly skewed in favor of the party more likely to get away with injustices.

The fact is the LEO is sworn to uphold the law, and by nature of the job carries a greater responsibility to be exemplary, not just lawful, but EXEMPLARY. A failure on their part to do so should carry much greater weight than of an average citizen.

 

[ixtow]

Should an entire group be discriminated against simply because of the misdeeds of a few? Seriously? Why do I even have to ask the question?

I have two courses here.

Personally? Yes. I discriminate the hell out of any group with which I have had overwhelmingly bad experiences. I call it common sense.

Publicly? I do not tell others what to do, or that my way should be their way. I DO ask that others restrain themselves from the same; Telling people not to bother with a recorder is both an intrusion into their own choices, and really bad advice based on lies.

I SUGGEST that anyone who likes being on this side of the bars, carry a recorder. Cops have a reputation for lying and fabricating just because arresting people for no reason satisfies their ego problems. The State likes it this way and always turns a blind eye unless you have evidence it cannot ignore.

Do you want to be the guy who finds himself in jail over a LEOs lies, with no way to prove your innocence? Don't kid yourself, this so-called 'justice system' is absolutely 100% guilty until proven innocent; a LEOs words wouldn't have any more weight than the defendant's if the "Innocent until Proven Guilty" concept were in practice. Words from any human being are never "proof." That fact that LEOs words are elevated to being called 'evidence' (even in the face of real evidence that disproves them in many cases) is the proof that we are all guilty until proven innocent.

Just as with self defense, the Right is not the same as the Ability... If you leave your Recorder at home in the Gun Safe, you may as well give up now... Choose to be stupid if you like, but don't complain when you get railroaded like all those examples which came before you, which you failed to learn from....

I cannot imagine how carrying a gun for a slim maybe is more important than carrying a mere recorder for something that is much, much more likely to happen.... I've had to defend myself from Cops over 20 times more frequently than any other sort of bad guy. I'm sure those who don't ever dare exercise their rights interface with cops a lot less... I am NOT a good little sheeple. Those who are probably deal with cops less often. But how much less? The statistics show the average number is closer to 12:1 for so-called 'normal' (AKA lazy) people. It's just a damn recorder.

If you're already carrying a gun for a much less likely threat, how can you argue against the recorder? Horribly irrational. If the LEOs are really so great and wonderful, all it will record is how great and wonderful they are. Post it up on youtube to show the world these great and wonderful LEOs... It would support the apologist angle in every conceivable way. Yet, where is it?

LEO apologists are selling bridges. I call it. Now prove me wrong by doing something that makes sense; and if you were a logical and scientific person, would already be doing.

In fact, if I ever have a non-rights-violating LEO encounter, I'll post it myself. But, it's never happened...

 

[Baked on Grease]

I have two courses here.

Personally? Yes. I discriminate the hell out of any group with which I have had overwhelmingly bad experiences. I call it common sense.

Publicly? I do not tell others what to do, or that my way should be their way. I DO ask that others restrain themselves from the same; Telling people not to bother with a recorder is both an intrusion into their own choices, and really bad advice based on lies.

I SUGGEST that anyone who likes being on this side of the bars, carry a recorder. Cops have a reputation for lying and fabricating just because arresting people for no reason satisfies their ego problems. The State likes it this way and always turns a blind eye unless you have evidence it cannot ignore.

Do you want to be the guy who finds himself in jail over a LEOs lies, with no way to prove your innocence? Don't kid yourself, this so-called 'justice system' is absolutely 100% guilty until proven innocent; a LEOs words wouldn't have any more weight than the defendant's if the "Innocent until Proven Guilty" concept were in practice. Words from any human being are never "proof." That fact that LEOs words are elevated to being called 'evidence' (even in the face of real evidence that disproves them in many cases) is the proof that we are all guilty until proven innocent.

Just as with self defense, the Right is not the same as the Ability... If you leave your Recorder at home in the Gun Safe, you may as well give up now... Choose to be stupid if you like, but don't complain when you get railroaded like all those examples which came before you, which you failed to learn from....

I cannot imagine how carrying a gun for a slim maybe is more important than carrying a mere recorder for something that is much, much more likely to happen.... I've had to defend myself from Cops over 20 times more frequently than any other sort of bad guy. I'm sure those who don't ever dare exercise their rights interface with cops a lot less... I am NOT a good little sheeple. Those who are probably deal with cops less often. But how much less? The statistics show the average number is closer to 12:1 for so-called 'normal' (AKA lazy) people. It's just a damn recorder.

If you're already carrying a gun for a much less likely threat, how can you argue against the recorder? Horribly irrational. If the LEOs are really so great and wonderful, all it will record is how great and wonderful they are. Post it up on youtube to show the world these great and wonderful LEOs... It would support the apologist angle in every conceivable way. Yet, where is it?

LEO apologists are selling bridges. I call it. Now prove me wrong by doing something that makes sense; and if you were a logical and scientific person, would already be doing.

In fact, if I ever have a non-rights-violating LEO encounter, I'll post it myself. But, it's never happened...

Much like the "Positive LEO encounter" that surfaced from Cali a couple months ago. Yeah everyone was polite and the UOCer went on with his day. Look deeper into it and you see the officer in the background pull his pistol out, when there is no evidence to suggest any need to.

Also the officer performed an (e) check, which is completely discretional on the part of the officer, and seems to be used by police there to fish for reason for arrest. (discussed ad nauseum in the Cali forum, so try not to delve into the fight in this thread) My point is, does someone HAVE to get arrested for their rights to be violated? No, I don't belive so.

As to the stats of LEO being disciplined, how many of those happened because of a citizen filing a complaint? In NYC (and others) it's been said that it's "known" that pat downs and searches are common place in certain areas or for certain profiles of people. How many of them file a complaint? How many of them even realize the cop is in the wrong? It becomes not noteworthy to them to the point that they almost expect it and if they ate "allowed" to go on their way it's forgotton as soon as they turn the corner. My point here is does a cop HAVE to be disciplined for the to be a bad cop? No, I don't belive so.

Nor do I believe that many of them do it purposefully so don't get me wrong there. They are trained to catch criminals, and despite what they learn in the academy, good or bad, they learn how to do that mainly from other cops that already work the beat. We call them fuzzy strawberries where I work. One fuzzy can ruin the basket over time, and no matter how many fresh new strawberries you put in there, it gets fuzzy over time too. The more fuzzies in one place the faster they turn fuzzy.

Sent using tapatalk

 

[ixtow]

Much like the "Positive LEO encounter" that surfaced from Cali a couple months ago. Yeah everyone was polite and the UOCer went on with his day. Look deeper into it and you see the officer in the background pull his pistol out, when there is no evidence to suggest any need to.

Also the officer performed an (e) check, which is completely discretional on the part of the officer, and seems to be used by police there to fish for reason for arrest. (discussed ad nauseum in the Cali forum, so try not to delve into the fight in this thread) My point is, does someone HAVE to get arrested for their rights to be violated? No, I don't belive so.

As to the stats of LEO being disciplined, how many of those happened because of a citizen filing a complaint? In NYC (and others) it's been said that it's "known" that pat downs and searches are common place in certain areas or for certain profiles of people. How many of them file a complaint? How many of them even realize the cop is in the wrong? It becomes not noteworthy to them to the point that they almost expect it and if they ate "allowed" to go on their way it's forgotton as soon as they turn the corner. My point here is does a cop HAVE to be disciplined for the to be a bad cop? No, I don't belive so.

Nor do I believe that many of them do it purposefully so don't get me wrong there. They are trained to catch criminals, and despite what they learn in the academy, good or bad, they learn how to do that mainly from other cops that already work the beat. We call them fuzzy strawberries where I work. One fuzzy can ruin the basket over time, and no matter how many fresh new strawberries you put in there, it gets fuzzy over time too. The more fuzzies in one place the faster they turn fuzzy.

Sent using tapatalk

You typed all that on your smartphone? Really?

If someone can video a LEO encounter that is consensual, a minor plausible excuse exists, and then when an explanation is given, the officer goes away instead of pressing for things he has no authority to demand... I'll be happy to say there is a video of a good cop. How about a traffic stop where the LEO doesn't ask to search the car for no reason? Doesn't seize your sidearm for no reason?

Or the best kind, where the cops leave you the hell alone altogether because they have no cause. I bet it's hard to get that on video, because there is nothing to get... Can't prove a negative, as I already mentioned. I've seen it reported that "The LEOs must have seen it, there's no way they couldn't have; and nothing happened." Why can't we get that on video? No, it's not exciting... 15 seconds of walking by a cop and nothing happens. That's the point. It shouldn't be hard if it's the majority as claimed.

The stats aren't useful, because LEOs are rarely disciplined. Their bad behavior is usually the mandate of their higher-ranking bosses. They rarely get caught, and almost never prosecuted. Citizens, on the other hand... LEOs have admitted to fabricating charges to meet quotas. So, the criminality of the Citizen-side of that argument is also know to be artificially augmented. The numbers do lie.

You can get a LEO in serious crap for reporting that you were pleasantly surprised that he didn't behave like a thug; his boss WANTS him to behave like a thug. The worst corruption is at the top. Even if some cops are good, they're compelled not to be if they want to keep their jobs... The training and selection process makes this very obvious.

I'm not saying Good Cops don't exist (tho, that's what I believe). I'm saying, why don't the apologists make any effort to show their point? If they love the LEOs so much, where's the tiny effort it would take to show off their glorious heros?

 

[MAC702]

...Why can't we get that on video? No, it's not exciting... 15 seconds of walking by a cop and nothing happens. That's the point. It shouldn't be hard if it's the majority as claimed....

You're right, it makes for boring video and there's no need to publish it. However, we do have several threads (seems like there is one in each state's forum) that clearly show we are very aware of and quick to recognize when we have pleasant, non-confrontational encounters. There is also a reason why we often DO make a special effort to recognize law enforcement that doesn't do anything when there is no law needing to be enforced.