( seen to be doing the job but dont realy give a shit)
Had a whole lot else to say, but really matters little.
It is a closed community, yes you can become part of it, but it is a clique. Even among other public service agencies, there is interaction, but it is not the same.
They do not hire paragons of virtue and goodly ways. Their purposes are not meant for such things.
Do people who are that way end up making their way to these professions? Indeed, poor education and propaganda has convinced society of a fairy tale concept. "Crime Prevention"
The peasants of the the old world were not protected by "sheriffs" of their lords. The sheriffs of their lords kept order among the peasants for their lords. If they got into a fight, yes they would break it up, but not for the interest of those involved, but for the interest of the lord who needed those peasants to generate revenue. Of which the sheriff collected.
Continued to the effect of:
Prisons and modern society continue to use this method of raising up segments of the peasant populace to monitor and enforce among their own. Poor education allows for the conception they are there for you, and your concerns.
Rydher wrote:That part was referring to you and everyone else that posts every video they can find of a cop doing anything even remotely wrong, regardless of investigating the actual circumstances behind it or even knowing the whole story. But it in no way indicates you wanting to cause violence. None the less, that's the reaction produced from a constant attack on those enforcing the law and the constant march of trying to get the public to distrust them - treating them as the enemy.
Exaggeration doesn't help your opinion. If it were "remotely" true that we "post(s) every video "we" can find of a cop doing anything even remotely wrong,..." we could fill up pages and pages with videos. As far as I know, that hasn't been done here. Most of the ones that have been posted, have been investigated, so that's weak, as well. The "constant attacks" that I have seen, are attacks only to those who have done something, or been involved in something that they should not have done.
Eh? If you see a cop or know of a cop not acting in a legal manner, then you turn them in. Just like you would with any other criminal. You probably shouldn't go to their agency/precinct, go to someone else. Follow up, don't just report it then go on with your life.
If they are going to watch me, record me, and who knows what else- surreptitiously, to make sure that I don't do anything wrong, then I want the same right with them. They should not be excluded from examination and regulation, for they are human beings, and go afoul as well.
If it's me a victim of what? Police mistreatment? Then I'll handle it the best I can. The same way I'd handle any criminal committing acts of violence against me. The constant attempt to separate the humanity from police officers is wrong. The constant drum beat of us Vs. them is not productive to solving anything by hate and violence. And, like before, you may not be advocating violence. That's the sound this drum beat produces.
Then they should clean up their act- as an organization. Period. The whole system is chock full of corruption, on up to judges, mayors, etc, etc,... If you don't realize that, then....what ever. These kinds of repetitive crimes, and unjust behavioures inside law enforcement are a seeming by product of the stinking, festering mentality of hidden corruption that has been going on for years. Only difference now, is it's being recorded by individuals documenting the nazi tactics- more and more- because they're happening, more and more. That's why some of them are putting up such a stink about being recorded. If they have faith that their actions are justifiable, then they have nothing to fear. Just like they expect of us.
This is the city that I live in- Chicago.
Because of several experiences that I, and some people I know, have had with Chicago policemen, over the years, I fear them, and don't really like them very much- as a group. I know very well what they're capable of. I've met some really nice cops, and witnessed a few good things, but for the most part, they have been bad experiences. None of these experiences have led to my arrest, because firstly, I was innocent of any wrong-doings, secondly, I'm smart. I cooperated fully, and did not antagonize them. That was not enough though, for them to treat me as a descent human being. They were ass holes to me, for no reason what-so-ever. Actually, there did seem to be a reason- it was because they could.
Chicago State's Attorney Lets Bad Cops Slide, Prosecutes Citizens Who Record Them
When Chicago police answered a domestic disturbance call at the home of Tiawanda Moore and her boyfriend in July 2010, the officers separated the couple to question them individually. Moore was interviewed privately in her bedroom. According to Moore, the officer who questioned her then came on to her, groped her breast and slipped her his home phone number.
Robert Johnson, Moore's attorney, says that when Moore and her boyfriend attempted to report the incident to internal affairs officials at the Chicago Police Department, the couple wasn't greeted warmly. "They discouraged her from filing a report," Johnson says. "They gave her the runaround, scared her, and tried to intimidate her from reporting this officer -- from making sure he couldn't go on to do this to other women."
Ten months later, Chicago PD is still investigating the incident. Moore, on the other hand, was arrested the very same afternoon.
Her crime? At some point in her conversations with internal affairs investigators, Moore grew frustrated with their attempts to intimidate her. So she began to surreptitiously record the interactions on her Blackberry. In Illinois, it is illegal to record people without their consent, even (and as it turns out, especially) on-duty police officers.
"This is someone who is already scared from being harassed by an officer in uniform," said Johnson. "If the police won't even take her complaint, how else is a victim of police abuse supposed to protect herself?"
Moore's case has inspired outrage from anti-domestic abuse groups. "We just had two Chicago police officers indicted for sexual assault, there have been several other cases of misconduct against women," says Melissa Spatz of the Chicago Task Force on Violence Against Girls & Young Women. "And now you have Moore, who was trying to report this guy, and she gets arrested. The message here is that victims of unwanted sexual advances by police officers have no recourse -- that the police can act with impunity."
If the Chicago cops recently indicted for sexual assault are convicted, they'll face four to 15 years in prison. That's the same sentence Tiawanda Moore is facing for trying to document her frustrations while reporting her own alleged sexual assault: Recording an on-duty police officer in Illinois is a Class 1 felony, the same class of crimes as rape.
ILLINOIS' PROBLEM WITH PRIVACY
Last summer the U.S. media took note of several stories about citizens arrested for photographing or recording on-duty police officers. National coverage of these incidents has since died down, but the arrests haven't stopped.
Some of these arrests have come under decades-old wiretapping laws that never anticipated the use of cellphones equipped with cameras and audio recording applications. Others have come under vaguer catch-all charges like refusing to obey a lawful order, disorderly conduct, or interfering with a police officer. In both cases, the charges rarely stick, and in most cases, it's the cops themselves who are violating the law.
The media have largely done a poor job reporting on what the law actually is in these states. Technically, so long as a person isn't physically interfering with an on-duty police officer, it's legal to record the officer in every state but Massachusetts and Illinois. Arrests still happen in other states, but there's little legal justification for them, and the charges are usually dropped, or never filed at all.
But Illinois is the one state where the law clearly forbids citizens from recording of on-duty cops. And so it seems likely that if the Supreme Court or a federal appeals court does eventually decide if pointing a camera at a cop is protected by the First Amendment (so far, they haven't), the case will come from Illinois. (Courts in Massachusetts have generally held that secretly recording police is illegal, but recording them openly isn't.)
Illinois' wiretapping law wasn't always this bad. Originally, the statute included a provision found in most other state wiretapping laws stating that, in order for someone to be prosecuted for recording a conversation, the offended party must have had a reasonable expectation that the conversation was private.
Watch: The Government's War On Cameras
So far, every court in the country to have considered the issue has found that on-duty cops have no such expectation of privacy. This makes sense. Police not only work for the public, they're also entrusted with enormous power: They can arrest citizens and detain them or kill them.
In 1986, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out the eavesdropping conviction of a man who had recorded two police officers from the back of a patrol car for just that reason. The court ruled that the officers had no expectation of privacy.
So in 1994 the Illinois state legislature removed the wiretap law's privacy provision. It was an explicit effort to override the decision eight years earlier. Technically the amended law covers everyone -- anyone whose voice is recorded without their permission, for any reason, could file a complaint and ask to press charges -- but it's used almost exclusively to protect police.
So far, HuffPost has yet to find anyone who has actually been convicted under the law. Instead, police arrest and charge someone they catch recording them, but the charges are dropped or reduced to misdemeanors before trial.
In 2004, for example, documentary filmmaker Patrick Johnson was arrested under the law while recording footage for a movie about relations between blacks and police in the Illinois cities of Champaign and Urbana. Johnson fought the charges with help from the state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). But after the district attorney who was prosecuting him lost in the next election, the new prosecutor dismissed the charges.
THE STATE v. CITIZENS
An actual conviction under the eavesdropping law would likely bring a constitutional challenge, which could well lead to the law being overturned in court. It could also lead to the U.S. Supreme Court or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit more broadly affirming a First Amendment right to record police, which of course would have ramifications outside of Illinois.
As long as no one is convicted, the law is unlikely to be challenged. That means police can continue to rely on it to harass and intimidate citizens who try to hold them accountable, or who want an independent record of what they believe to be police harassment.
Moore's case may prove to be just the opportunity free speech advocates are looking for. But her case was continued again this week, despite the fact that she's been asking for months to go to trial.
The person pursuing the charges against Moore is Anita Alvarez, the state's attorney for Cook County, home to Chicago. (Alvarez's office declined to comment for this report.)
It's difficult to think of another big city in America where citizens would be more justified in wanting an objective account of an interaction with a police officer. At about the time Moore's story hit the pages of The New York Times earlier this year, for example, former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison for lying under oath about his role in the routine torture of hundreds of suspects in police interrogation rooms for more than a decade. Nearly everyone else involved in the tortures, including the police commanders and prosecutors who helped cover them up, couldn't be prosecuted due to statutes of limitations.
Over the last few years, surveillance video has also exposed a number of police abuses in Chicago, including one episode in which an off-duty cop savagely beat a female bartender who had refused to continue serving him. He was sentenced to probation.
In 2008, the city made national headlines with another major scandal in which officers in the department's Special Operations Unit -- alleged to be made up of the most elite and trusted cops in Chicago -- were convicted of a variety of crimes, including physical abuse and intimidation, home robberies, theft and planning a murder.
In a study published the same year, University of Chicago Law Professor Craig B. Futterman found 10,000 complaints filed against Chicago police officers between 2002 and 2004, more than any city in the country. When adjusted for population, that's still about 40 percent above the national average. Even more troubling, of those 10,000 complaints, just 19 resulted in any significant disciplinary action. In 85 percent of complaints, the police department cleared the accused officer without even bothering to interview him.
Yet Alvarez feels it necessary to devote time and resources to prosecuting Chicagoans who, given the figures and anecdotes above, feel compelled to hit the record button when confronted by a city cop.
In addition to Moore's, there are two other cases that may present an opportunity to challenge the Illinois law. One is that of Michael Allison.
This Robinson, Ill., man is facing four counts of violating the eavesdropping law for the recordings he made of police officers and a judge. Allison was suing the city to challenge a local zoning ordinance that prevented him from enjoying his hobby fixing up old cars: The municipal government was seizing his cars from his property and forcing him to pay to have them returned. Allison believed the local police were harassing him in retaliation for his lawsuit, so he began to record his conversations with them.
When Allison was eventually charged with violating the zoning ordinance, he asked for a court reporter to ensure there would be a record of his trial. He was told that misdemeanor charges didn't entitle him to a court reporter. So Allison told court officials he'd be recording his trial with a digital recorder.
When Allison walked into the courtroom the day of his trial, the judge had him arrested for allegedly violating her right to privacy. Police then confiscated Allison's digital recorder, where they also found the recordings he'd made of his conversations with cops.
Allison has no prior criminal record. If convicted, he faces up to 75 years in prison.
In a hearing last week, Allison argued that the Illinois eavesdropping case was a violation of the First Amendment. The judge ordered a continuance so that the office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan can prepare a response. (Madigan's office did not respond to HuffPost's request for comment.)
The other case to challenge the wiretap law is that of Christopher Drew, an artist who was arrested in December 2009 for selling art without a permit on the streets of Chicago. Drew recorded his arrest, and now faces four to 15 years for documenting the incident.
In a hearing last December, Cook County Assistant State Attorney Jeff Allen invoked homeland security, arguing that Drew's recording could have picked up police discussing anti-terrorism tactics. Drew's case was suspended after he was diagnosed with lung cancer earlier this year.
Both Allison and Drew say they won't accept the sort of plea bargain Illinois prosecutors have offered in the past. Both say they're willing to risk prison time to get the law overturned.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TRANSPARENCY
The ACLU of Illinois is also challenging the law. But in January, U.S. District Court Judge Suzanne B. Conlon ruled against the organization. Conlon wrote that the First Amendment does not protect citizens who record the police. The ACLU has appealed and expects to participate in oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit sometime in the fall.
In a report released just this month, the United Nations noted the importance of Internet access and personal technology in facilitating the recent Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East. Technology has given citizens all over the world a remarkable and historic tool to bring transparency to the most brutal and oppressive governments.
But even as Americans have criticized those countries for attempting to prevent protesters from uploading photo, video, blog posts and Twitter accounts of government crackdowns, government officials in the U.S. are still arresting, threatening, intimidating and harassing Americans who attempt to document police abuse in America. (See this example over Memorial Day in Miami.)
No, America isn't Egypt or Yemen or Iran. But while the scale of the suppression is different, the premise is the same: When a citizen and a police officer have a confrontation, the police officer's narrative has always been given deference by prosecutors, judges and juries -- in the same way governments in more oppressive parts of the world have the power to project their own version of events as truth.
Citizens in America and across the globe now have the ability to preserve and present a more objective narrative. This is a positive thing -- for democracy, for good government and for a fairer criminal justice system. U.S. courts and legislatures need to make it abundantly, unambiguously clear that not only do citizens have the right to record on-duty police officers, but that cops and prosecutors who violate that right will be held accountable.
Not even close.
This is the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor, as written, from the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
There are more then just a few, but perhaps almost all, that are not honoring their commitment to this oath.
Police officers take risks and suffer inconveniences to protect the lives, defend civil liberties, secure the safety of fellow citizens, and they endure such risks and tolerate such inconveniences on behalf of strangers. Consequently, police work is one of the more noble and selfless occupations in society. Making a difference in the quality of life is an opportunity that policing provides, and few other professions can offer.
A public affirmation of adhering to an Oath of Honor is a powerful vehicle demonstrating ethical standards. To be successful at enhancing integrity within an organization, leaders must ensure the oath is recited frequently and displayed throughout the organization as well as ensuring ethical mentoring and role modeling are consistent, frequent and visible. The following Law Enforcement Oath of Honor is recommended as by the International Association of Chiefs of Police as symbolic statement of commitment to ethical behavior:
On my honor,
I will never betray my badge1,
my integrity, my character,
or the public trust.
I will always have
the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution2
my community3 and the agency I serve.
We gather knowledge faster than we gather wisdom. - William Bell
...i'd like to think i could take care of myself and those i love...
if you and i were to give a criminal a warning shot , then 2 in the hat...
there'd be a lot less criminals...no need for someone else to take care of you
Seriously? What happens when one of 'our' warning shots accidently hits a by stander and we get their kin come looking for revenge partner?? Think that accidents like that do not happen?
The problem my friend is whilst all our collective good itentions are great, they are still just good intentions. The harsh realities of life teach us something quite different, we are infact incapable of takeing care of ourselves without ourselves turning into the very criminals that we are supposedly trying to fend off.
I see a lot of logic in your statement, however, highly impracticle. I know that if one of your warning shots came near me, you could expect one of mine to come near you.. steal my pony, I burn your house down... run over my child, accident or not I tear your legs off. Capish?
There in is the reason why we have laws, a means to regulate that which we ourselves cannot. We cannot be a justice onto ourselves, history has proven this time and time again, and whilst we have laws, we need people to enforce them without throwing us into anarchy.
We have a justice system, different but same in every country, and we need to trust in it.. aside from what 'we' think however, governments are formed and laws come into being through a democratic process, and guess what?? The majority vote rules, meaning that what we have in place is what the majority of the people want.
Now, if there is injustice in the system, that needs to be addresses without doubt, and if these 'cops' are doing things they shouldn't, then they need to be castrated, but that is not up to the lynch mob, that is up to the good cops to sort out.
On another directly related point... soom my friend there will come a time when your eyes will not see well enough to shoot your warning shot, and your arms not strong enough to pick up your gun, so who will protect you then? I would gladly do it my friend, but then again, that would make me a cop.
Guess people eventually get fed up.......
Did you see how he launched over the desk and was blastin on fools?
This guy was better than John Rambo....fo real hood possee mob stylee on tha po po......
“The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin.” Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
Hurtswhenipee wrote:Here are some fellows protecting us
the cop on the passenger side stepping in to kick the guy.. I honestly thought part of the video was fake because he "joined in" randomly..That many people for one guy?
All I know is that if anyone did anything bad to me or mine, those cops would not be able to prevent what woud happen next, a kick in the guts by a bunch of cops would seem very acceptable and tame...
Then again, I have proven my own point.. I cannot be trusted with the power of self 'protection', what makes any of you believe that given the same circumstances you would react any differently to those police officers?
Great to sit by the sidelines and criticise, but if the shoe was on the other foot, lets see how many would be praying for one or all of these 'bully cops' to come to your rescue. My guess is that most people contributing to this agument have never really faced danger or violence.
Step right up folks, the world is not the fairy tale you think it is.
Yes, there are bad cops, seek them out and treat them in kind, but ffs most of these officers are as decent as you and I. My dare to any of you 'cop haters'... next time your car gets stolen, you get assualted, car jacked, burgled etc... don't call the police, sek out your own justice.. when you evntually comeout of hospital and regain your ability to write, type a reply post letting us know how much better your solution was...
The dog that barks most often has the smallest bite....