Camera's, Cars, and Cops

vinkeatkel said:

Lin Evans said:

bystander or other driver is maimed or killed. In my community police
have killed at least two citizens because of foolish mistakes in the
last year alone. No one is perfect and we can't expect perfection
from a law enforcement officer either, but there are limits and this
officer stepped way over the line.

Click to expand...

"Waaaaaaay over the line", huh?

Click to expand...

Yes.

vinkeatkel said:

The cop spewed a bunch of hot air, and in the end didn't do a thing.
The stupid kid had a blast and his fn' rights were NOT violated.

Click to expand...

He threatened, lied about several things, bragged about what he "could" do and otherwise acted like an aggressive schoolyard bully. Not what we need as a law enforcement representative.

vinkeatkel said:

It's commical how dramatic you all are. JHC, how do you guys cope
with day-to-day living? It must not take much to get you all worked
up and pushed out of shape.

Click to expand...

Not a problem dude. I suspect I've seen more day to day living in seriously dangerous situations and under real stress than you from what I'm hearing. I've been shot and wounded three separate times in two combat tours in with the most decorated airborne unit in Vietnam. I've done my share of killing and I'm not a bit backward about expressing my rights to keep and bear arms. If you think it's alright to have a cop break the law and act like a juvenile punk you have a perfect right to say so. I have a perfect right to hope it's you next time on the receiving end of some of that foolishness - maybe you'll learn something but I doubt it.

Lin

vinkeatkel said:

I wonder what you all think about gun rights?

Click to expand...

Lin Evans said:

vinkeatkel said:

Lin Evans said:

bystander or other driver is maimed or killed. In my community police
have killed at least two citizens because of foolish mistakes in the
last year alone. No one is perfect and we can't expect perfection
from a law enforcement officer either, but there are limits and this
officer stepped way over the line.

Click to expand...

"Waaaaaaay over the line", huh?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Member said:

The cop spewed a bunch of hot air, and in the end didn't do a thing.
The stupid kid had a blast and his fn' rights were NOT violated.

Click to expand...

He threatened, lied about several things, bragged about what he
"could" do and otherwise acted like an aggressive schoolyard bully.
Not what we need as a law enforcement representative.

Member said:

It's commical how dramatic you all are. JHC, how do you guys cope
with day-to-day living? It must not take much to get you all worked
up and pushed out of shape.

Click to expand...

Not a problem dude. I suspect I've seen more day to day living in
seriously dangerous situations and under real stress than you from
what I'm hearing. I've been shot and wounded three separate times in
two combat tours in with the most decorated airborne unit in Vietnam.
I've done my share of killing and I'm not a bit backward about
expressing my rights to keep and bear arms. If you think it's alright
to have a cop break the law and act like a juvenile punk you have a
perfect right to say so. I have a perfect right to hope it's you next
time on the receiving end of some of that foolishness - maybe you'll
learn something but I doubt it.

Lin

Click to expand...

Lin, I cant leave your comments go with out responce

Having 2 brothers in the military I salute you and stand beside you in the right to bear arms

Member said:

Member said:

I wonder what you all think about gun rights?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Tom
Photography is the hobby that you can legally shoot people and blown them up
see my ugly pics at :
http://www.pbase.com/tom1468

well, i don't think the cop broke the law. i think he was unprofessional.

most of you are too unforgiving. a cop CAN have a bad day, act unprofessionally under certain circumstances, and still be a good person and potentially good cop.

if this is his first such substantiated outburst than i sincerely hope that they don't fire him, but give him some further training and let him prove himself worthy of the badge.

Lin Evans said:

expressing my rights to keep and bear arms. If you think it's alright
to have a cop break the law and act like a juvenile punk you have a
perfect right to say so. I have a perfect right to hope it's you next
time on the receiving end of some of that foolishness - maybe you'll
learn something but I doubt it.

Click to expand...

someone with some common sense.

Slayer9292 said:

Disagree. The only reason not to answer is if you are doing
something wrong...or just a plain jerk. Nothing good will come out
of silense.

I'll give you an example.

I used to live in the bay area...it was a few months after 9/11. I
was parked at a lookout near the Golden Gate Bridge one morning.
Waiting for the sunrise to photograph. Bridge security police drives
by, about 30 seconds later they come back. Park the car, the officer
walks up to my window. Shines a light in the car, here is the
conversation that occured

Officer: "How are you?"
Me: "Fine, thanks"
Officer: "What are you up to?"
Me: "Waiting to photograph the sunrise"
Officer looks around more : "Ok, have a nice day"
Officer leaves.

Now, if I use your advice, it would have went like this

Officer: "How are you?"
Me: say nothing
Officer: "What are you up to?"
Me: "None of your business."

He calls for homeland security, who then proceedes to take me into
custody on suspision of terrorism. And rightfully so. It's his
business to protect the public (in this case the bridge and the
people who travel on it). If I were a terrorist, and he didn't
investigate, then he would be failing to do his duty.

Seems really stupid to not answer a few simple questions.

Click to expand...

the litigious and trouble-making chato.

big bucks, huh? this exact scenario?

dream on.

Chato said:

I like this scenario. I could sue thier a$$es for BIG BUCK$ and never
have to work again....

Dave

Click to expand...

vinkeatkel said:

vinkeatkel wrote:
well, i don't think the cop broke the law. i think he was
unprofessional.

Click to expand...

It's OK to delude yourself and certainly not against the law to try to influence others to your incapacitated way of thinking. The threats he made certainly did break the law. Civil rights violations? Yep, that too. He should be held to account. He wasn't upholding the law, wasn't enforcing the law, he was breaking it and even worse, was using the law as a weapon to control a citizen (who was not in need of control btw) with fear and intimidation. It's a far more serious event than you pretend it to be.

vinkeatkel said:

most of you are too unforgiving. a cop CAN have a bad day, act
unprofessionally under certain circumstances, and still be a good
person and potentially good cop.

Click to expand...

A cop is not a person, as in a civilian. They are a government employee.

This was more than just a bad day. I think everybody is becoming aware of this, even if they won't say it aloud.

vinkeatkel said:

if this is his first such substantiated outburst than i sincerely
hope that they don't fire him, but give him some further training and
let him prove himself worthy of the badge.

Click to expand...

You may get your wish. But then, maybe not. This officer and his Chief both have a very checkered career in law enforcement. Concerning the Cheif, in 2002 a State investigation by the AHC concluded that because of a 2000 traffic stop of a young woman that his action was a gross misconduct indicating inability to function as a peace officer. The officer in the video has some closed documents on his police conduct record. He does have a track record. Much is just now starting to come out about their history of abuses of authority in this town. It is being investigated nine ways to Sunday.

Their tactics are also abusive. For instance, a woman blew a .065 on the alcohol breath meter. .08 and above is the against the law. Anything below is not against the law. They ticketed her anyway. She then gets a letter saying that the drunk driving charge won't be put against her points record but the incident will still stand in St. George, and to get it removed she can pay a $400 fine to a lessor charge of equipment failure. How high does the corruption and abuse go?

Dude, you've been on the wrong side of this event.

Lawrence

--

'Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach' --Albert Einstein

'No tree has branches so foolish as to fight amongst themselves' --The Ojibwa Indian

Dream on? Why should he, are you lonely in your odd little dreamland?

So, you think that this person should be arrested for suspicion of being a terrorist when there is NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE AT ALL?

LOL! Chato was right and you obviously have no clue. It would be a lawsuit against the police just waiting to happen.

DIPics

vinkeatkel said:

big bucks, huh? this exact scenario?

dream on.

Chato said:

I like this scenario. I could sue thier a$$es for BIG BUCK$ and never
have to work again....

Dave

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Plebian said:

Plebian said:

vinkeatkel wrote:
well, i don't think the cop broke the law. i think he was
unprofessional.

Click to expand...

It's OK to delude yourself and certainly not against the law to try
to influence others to your incapacitated way of thinking. The
threats he made certainly did break the law.

Click to expand...

state the law then: # , title:

Plebian said:

Dude, you've been on the wrong side of this event.

Click to expand...

"dude" i'm not on any side. i'm NOT in support of the cops tirade, though i think he had every right to question the punk. and despite my over-the-top rhetoric that suggested planting of a "snub nose" and "weed" (of which i don't really espouse) i truly believe that their are plenty of civil, lawful ways the police could have made this wayward rabble-rousser uncomfortable for Fing with them. i just don't have a hardon for the video-vigilante the way you and chato do. in fact, i'm beginning to think you and the punk might be working as one. i don't know anything about the cops in your area, but it's evident by your passion on this matter that you believe there's a huge problem. so why not do something about it without being the source of the problem yourself? if it's truly a problem then your community (or St. George) will work it out. if it's not a problem, or your community in large supports the strong-arming of certain punks, then it may be difficult to bring about change. but if you aren't a "punk" you've got nothing to worry about. if you are a "punk", then maybe it's time to cosider moving in with chato.

Plebian said:

Lawrence

--
'Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach'
--Albert Einstein

'No tree has branches so foolish as to fight amongst themselves'
--The Ojibwa Indian

Click to expand...

In the last post you said there is no reason to answer any questions...now you are saying you should cooperate. You're contradicting yourself.

My point was there is no reason not to cooperate...And answering simple questions is cooperating.

It's the officers job to investigate "suspicious activity". If they have problems with car theft, vandals, drugs, etc in that lot, then yes he should investigate. However his response was completly uncalled for.

vinkeatkel said:

someone with some common sense.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983:

It is unlawful for a person acting under color of state authority to deprive a citizen of any right secured by the Constitution of the United States. Such violation makes the offender and the state liable for civil damages.
--
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

no rights were deprived in this case. talk about fabrication.

TheShaman2007 said:

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983:

It is unlawful for a person acting under color of state authority to
deprive a citizen of any right secured by the Constitution of the
United States. Such violation makes the offender and the state
liable for civil damages.
--
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

Click to expand...

TheShaman2007 said:

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983:

It is unlawful for a person acting under color of state authority to
deprive a citizen of any right secured by the Constitution of the
United States. Such violation makes the offender and the state
liable for civil damages.
--
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

Click to expand...

According to this Police Hating Troll, none of the below is a crime:

Officer #1: Yeah you did, when you were coming in here.
Brett: Really? What was that?

Officer #1: Yeah, you wanna try me? You wanna try me tonight? You think you've had a bad night? I will ruin your ing night.
[Officer starts to get close up to my face]
Officer #1 You want to try me?

[Officer is inches away from my face, screaming as I'm pinned between him and my vehicle]

Officer #1 Do you wanna try me young boy? Do you want to try me tonight young boy?
Brett: No I don't.
Officer #1: Do you want to go to jail for some ing reason I come up with?
Brett: No I don't.

Officer #1: Do you wanna see who knows the law better, me or you. My experience compared to your young ass. Huh? Don't ever get smart mouthed with a cop again. I show you what a cop does. Do you understand me?
Brett: Yes sir.

Officer #1: Try and talk back -- Talk back to me again. I bet I could say you resisted arrest or something. You want to come up with something? I come up with nine things. Do you wanna try something?
Brett: No I don't.
Officer #1: Wait here.

2:52

Officer #1 Oh, while you were coming towards me you were swerving back and forth within the roadway. Okay? I might give you a ticket for that. You want me to come up with some more? When you turned in, you failed to use your turn signal, your right turn signal [Turn signal was used, see video at 0:06]. You wanna try me some more? Huh? Come on smart ass. Gimmie an attitude a little bit more. I bet -- I guarantee I can tow this car by the time I'm done with you. You wanna try me now? Gimmie a little more lip. [officer gets back up in my face] Come on boy. Come on boy give me some more lip. You're done?

Threats are legally called a crime. Coming from an Armed Person, they are pretty serious.

That he didn't carry out these threats simply means that he didn't commit Other crimes.

But in all this talk about the parking lot, the theft of that tape (undoubtedly by the kid to make the police look even worse)

That's a pretty serious crime in an of itself. Theft or destruction of evidene? Were there more than one person? Conspircy to destroy evidene.

These are actually far more serious felonies than the rest of this case.

Dave

Slayer9292 said:

Slayer9292 wrote:
In the last post you said there is no reason to answer any
questions...now you are saying you should cooperate. You're
contradicting yourself.

Click to expand...

No, there's no contradiction taking place. I stand by what I said. There is no legal standing to compel you to answer any question they may ask of you. Note I did not say 'every' question. Cooperation does not mean you must answer every question. Where I work, where I shop for groceries, how my day is going, etc., is none of their business and they shouldn't be asking. Politely replying that it is none of their business should not be made a cause for suspicion for anything.

Suspicious behavior is another travesty. This consideration makes every breathing person open to police scrutiny. The long arm is overreaching.

Slayer9292 said:

My point was there is no reason not to cooperate...And answering
simple questions is cooperating.

Click to expand...

Right, no reason not to cooperate and I saw no indication this kid was not cooperating. His response time might not have been snappy and his questions certainly weren't what a power hungry cop wants to hear but there was absolutely no indication of his being uncooperative.

Right, answering simple questions is cooperating but many of these simple questions are not any cops business.

Slayer9292 said:

It's the officers job to investigate "suspicious activity". If they
have problems with car theft, vandals, drugs, etc in that lot, then
yes he should investigate. However his response was completly
uncalled for.

Click to expand...

Cops often create suspicious activity to approach you. This is based on my having lived in the Midwest my whole life, and is not to say that it's absolute but it is wide spread. In my opinion this region is in a crisis and has been for some time now.

True, uncalled for but it is so much more serious than simply this. It strikes me that our talking points are from the same side of the field but with little overlap. That's not a bad thing.

Lawrence

--

'Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach' --Albert Einstein

'No tree has branches so foolish as to fight amongst themselves' --The Ojibwa Indian

vinkeatkel said:

vinkeatkel wrote:

state the law then: # , title:

Click to expand...

Soon, an official response to this will be made. Charges are being considered and it's very likely these will be put against him in the very near future. You don't need me to speculate what they may be.

vinkeatkel said:

"dude" i'm not on any side. i'm NOT in support of the cops tirade,
though i think he had every right to question the punk.
and despite my over-the-top rhetoric that suggested planting of a "snub nose"
and "weed" (of which i don't really espouse) i truly believe that their
are plenty of civil, lawful ways the police could have made this
wayward rabble-rousser uncomfortable for Fing with them. i just
don't have a hardon for the video-vigilante the way you and chato do.
in fact, i'm beginning to think you and the punk might be working as
one. i don't know anything about the cops in your area, but it's
evident by your passion on this matter that you believe there's a
huge problem. so why not do something about it without being the
source of the problem yourself? if it's truly a problem then your
community (or St. George) will work it out. if it's not a problem, or
your community in large supports the strong-arming of certain punks,
then it may be difficult to bring about change. but if you aren't a
"punk" you've got nothing to worry about. if you are a "punk", then
maybe it's time to cosider moving in with chato.

Click to expand...

Your view is very much like the police view mentioned in this article.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1967.asp

Another article worth reading. Note the mention of camera's.

http://www.myfoxstl.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=4340752&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

And Missouri's top cop, Attorney General Jay Nixon, says he has no objection to it.

"We in law enforcement should also be subject to the public eye. If we're going to use the cameras, then they take our picture too," said Nixon.

The region has no problem with a good police force and will rally behind them even to a fault. Problem cops and problem police forces, are, on the other hand, a problem.

I don't live in or around St. George. It's at least an hours drive away.

I will not consider for a second moving in with Chato. No doubt he hogs the t.v. remote and has bad bathroom habits ;-) He wouldn't be a terrible neighbor though.

Lawrence
--

'Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach' --Albert Einstein

'No tree has branches so foolish as to fight amongst themselves' --The Ojibwa Indian

Slayer9292 said:

Slayer9292 said:

Slayer9292 said:

Actually, the officer explained the problem.

Also, when the officer asks for ID, you are required by law to show
it. Especially if you were driving. In this case he is required by
law to show his drivers license.

Click to expand...

He did show his ID. He waited until the second time he was asked but
the policeman didn't push it either.

Click to expand...

Btw, I'm not siding with the officer. I just alot of people think
they don't have to show ID.

On the other hand, the first time he asked to see ID, the kid should
have shown him....not asked a question.

Click to expand...

Unless you are driving you don't have to show your ID. You don't legally have to carry ID at all (again, unless you are driving or a few other circumstances). You DO have to identify yourself when requested but can do so verbally. If this weren't the case, swimmers and joggers would be being busted left and right.

DIPics

dipics said:

Unless you are driving you don't have to show your ID. You don't
legally have to carry ID at all (again, unless you are driving or a
few other circumstances). You DO have to identify yourself when
requested but can do so verbally. If this weren't the case, swimmers
and joggers would be being busted left and right.

DIPics

Click to expand...

In this case the guy was driving.

Also, if you a caught with any moving type violation, including on foot or bike, like j walking, or any violation while riding a bike, you have to show ID.

Slayer9292 said:

Slayer9292 said:

Unless you are driving you don't have to show your ID. You don't
legally have to carry ID at all (again, unless you are driving or a
few other circumstances). You DO have to identify yourself when
requested but can do so verbally. If this weren't the case, swimmers
and joggers would be being busted left and right.

DIPics

Click to expand...

In this case the guy was driving.

Also, if you a caught with any moving type violation, including on
foot or bike, like j walking, or any violation while riding a bike,
you have to show ID.

Click to expand...

You have to have a license to walk? Or to ride a bike? The answer is obviously a resounding no.

If you aren't required to have a license, then you also obviously aren't required to show one. There is NO LAW that says you have to carry ID with you other than a few circumstances, such as driving (and not a bicycle).

Thankfully.

DIPics

dipics said:

You have to have a license to walk? Or to ride a bike? The answer
is obviously a resounding no.

If you aren't required to have a license, then you also obviously
aren't required to show one. There is NO LAW that says you have to
carry ID with you other than a few circumstances, such as driving
(and not a bicycle).

Thankfully.

DIPics

Click to expand...

I should have mentioned...that is the law in California. Might be differnet in your state.

Lets say you're riding a bike and you run through a stop sign. Do you think you won't be fined? You will be pulled over, fined and have it go on your driving record.

Slayer9292 said:

dipics said:

You have to have a license to walk? Or to ride a bike? The answer
is obviously a resounding no.

If you aren't required to have a license, then you also obviously
aren't required to show one. There is NO LAW that says you have to
carry ID with you other than a few circumstances, such as driving
(and not a bicycle).

Thankfully.

DIPics

Click to expand...

I should have mentioned...that is the law in California. Might be
differnet in your state.

Lets say you're riding a bike and you run through a stop sign. Do
you think you won't be fined? You will be pulled over, fined and
have it go on your driving record.

Click to expand...

In most states IF you give them your drivers license, then it can go on your record. But you are NOT required to carry your drivers license.

You ARE required to identify yourself. You are NOT required to show your drivers license or any other issued ID.

If this is different in California, could you please cite for me the law stating that you are required to carry government issued ID when on foot or a bicycle?

And, how many twelve year olds are arrested for this every year?

DIPics