Police openly steeling money at random to fund their department

[NonServiam]

Off on another semi-related tangent here. Let's talk about guns. We get briefings all the time on disguised weapons. It really is scary. Cell phones, hair brushes, ink pens, and any other household item you can think of that are actually single-shot pistols. Even a flashlight that fires shotgun rounds. There's also firearms out there that the factories paint pink, polk-a-dot, or have a "Hello Kitty" design on them.

So what the hell am I supposed to do if someone points a cell phone or hairbrush at me...shoot them? I might could justify it if the circumstances were right, but I can't do it in good conscience. Unfortunately, I will probably have to wait and find out the hard way after they already shoot at me with an ink pen and then I return fire. That is if their aim sucks. But if they're a good shot or point blank, it's just a bad day to be a cop.

Basically, if you point any weapon at me, I will shoot. I don't care if it's pink, clear, or has an orange tip like a toy gun. Have you seen some of these air-soft guns? They look remarkably real. But I don't think anyone here, despite an anti-cop stance, will dispute that if you point anything at a cop that looks like a gun, you have a death wish.

Here's a couple of interesting links. The Youtube link shows the cellphone gun that fires four .22 caliber bullets.

http://publicintelligence.net/baltim...ook-like-toys/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-A_DrChDJ0

[badlands]

NonServiam "If we believe and can articulate that property was gained illegally"..How exactly does your belief and articulation substitute for hard evidence of a committed crime or facilitation of?

[Roo]

Just to clarify sgreger1's post, I did not personally know the slain woodcarver. I work in the part of downtown where homeless (people in general and) Alaskan-Indian people hang out and I had seen him and continue to see his friends around. What I meant in my original post is that anyone who has seen these folks around town know they are a harmless lot who spend their time procuring beer, passing out in parks, and carving wood. The police know who they are. Yes, they are typically up to no good but only in the form of public drunkeness. My point was that if I knew who he was, surely the downtown beat cops knew who he was as well and they should leave guys like him alone and focus on the armed crack dealers and homeless pedophiles a few blocks away.

[NonServiam]

NonServiam "If we believe and can articulate that property was gained illegally"..How exactly does your belief and articulation substitute for hard evidence of a committed crime or facilitation of?

I'm not a dope cop, I prefer to work violent crimes, fraud, burglary, etc... But in a few instances I have ended up with a mobile meth lab or a vehicle containing everything to manufacture meth. So in those instances, I didn't have much to articulate, because the vehicle is being used to commit a felony (transporting a lab), and the hard evidence is right there in the vehicle. Then of course, the vehicle is seized. If it's a vehicle the department can utilize then we'll pay the forfeiture fee (which is like several hundred dollars). If it's a junker, or we just don't have any current use for it, it's auctioned off.

But back to your question. Belief and articulation can substitute hard evidence. Hard evidence is better though. Probable cause alone, which you must have for an arrest, is simply "the reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime". Reasonable being- if the circumstances were presented to an everyday person.

There have also been quite a few murderers convicted without any hard evidence, i.e. the body, the murder weapon, DNA, etc.. where everything was purely circumstantial and the jury felt the circumstances were beyond a reasonable doubt. Generic example: Some lady takes out a million dollar life insurance policy on her husband. The next week he disappears without a trace. She's already cashed the check and is partying in Cancun with her boyfriend. Something along those lines. I know, if there's no body yet why did the insurance company already pay out, but you get my drift. But these cases alone stand on nothing more than the Officers' and Prosecutor's belief and articulation, which they then present to a jury.

But generally, in drug related seizures of property, the hard evidence is there, and supports your articulation. They go hand and hand. Take for instance, you pull over two dudes. The car reeks of weed. You search the vehicle and find a couple hundred pounds of weed in the trunk all nicely packaged. You have money in the vehicle that is divided up nicely into bundles, let's say about $10,000.00. Any reasonable person would gather that the money was gained through drug sales. Maybe it wasn't, maybe one of these guys just won the lotto or his rich grandmother kicked the bucket and she left him all of her money because he is such a good boy.

All that cash is definitely not going into the property room as "hold for owner" for one of these to reclaim once they're back on the streets. The seized property has it's own trial. Kind of a forfeiture hearing. The case is presented to the judge. If he feels that the property being sought after was gained through criminal activity then they lose it.

Let's say there's no hard evidence. I pull a guy over (which if I stop you, that means you must have really F****D UP!). His license is suspended, so he goes to jail. I call for a wrecker. Anytime we call for a wrecker, we have to do what's called a vehicle inventory. Basically, I take inventory of everything that's in the vehicle. It's there to protect you and the wrecker company in case when you reclaim your vehicle property is missing or you try to claim the Mona Lisa is missing from your trunk.

During the inventory I found $10,000 nicely bundled and divided up. Of course, I'm thinking "man this guy either robbed a bank, is dealing, or something". But I find no dope in the vehicle, or log books documenting sales and who owes who. I'm not seizing the cash. Sure more than likely this guy got the cash illegally, but I don't have any other evidence to even begin to articulate. I can only speculate, and speculating doesn't cut it. That's more what you call a reasonable suspicion, which will lead me to take a harder look at things and maybe interview the guy to see if I can develop "reasonable suspicion" into "probable cause".

I hope this answers your question. My answer might be overkill. I might have not answered it all and just danced in a circle.

[sgreger1]

Off on another semi-related tangent here. Let's talk about guns. We get briefings all the time on disguised weapons. It really is scary. Cell phones, hair brushes, ink pens, and any other household item you can think of that are actually single-shot pistols. Even a flashlight that fires shotgun rounds. There's also firearms out there that the factories paint pink, polk-a-dot, or have a "Hello Kitty" design on them.

So what the hell am I supposed to do if someone points a cell phone or hairbrush at me...shoot them? I might could justify it if the circumstances were right, but I can't do it in good conscience. Unfortunately, I will probably have to wait and find out the hard way after they already shoot at me with an ink pen and then I return fire. That is if their aim sucks. But if they're a good shot or point blank, it's just a bad day to be a cop.

Basically, if you point any weapon at me, I will shoot. I don't care if it's pink, clear, or has an orange tip like a toy gun. Have you seen some of these air-soft guns? They look remarkably real. But I don't think anyone here, despite an anti-cop stance, will dispute that if you point anything at a cop that looks like a gun, you have a death wish.

Here's a couple of interesting links. The Youtube link shows the cellphone gun that fires four .22 caliber bullets.

http://publicintelligence.net/baltim...ook-like-toys/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-A_DrChDJ0

I agree completely, if you point anything at a cop you should expect to get shot. That being said, the case in question was a guy with a closed pocketknife of legal length who was a known woodcarver and known to be partially deaf. The man was not anywhere near the officer or approaching the officer, but was in fact turned opposite to the officer which is when he got shot in the back after a 4 second warning which he didn't hear because of his hearing disability.

I agree that if someone has an open knife and is looking like he's feelin froggy that morning and may rush you, i'm counting to 5 before I start discharging rounds at your ass, but again that is not what happened here. A citizen who was going about his business was shot in the back for committing no crime, and there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime.

The cop originally claimed that the man was on the curb with a knife and came to run at him, and that was the police spokesman's initial statement, until the dashcams showed that it was a complete lie and they had to pay the family 1.5 million.

Again, we give the death penalty to murderers, and this officer being expected to know the law more than a regular citizen, should be held to the same standard. His life should be taken for his blatant abuse of the power that was assigned to him. He gets paid a wage to do a tough job, that does not mean you get free reign to murder at will. And the man being a drunk doesn't change shit, he is still a citizen and no special laws apply to vagrants where you can just gun them down at will.


Being a cop is a tough job because there are lots of judgement calls, and I personally would not take chances if I felt I was in danger, that is just a human survival reaction, but to hear that people can be gunned down in the street for the crime of owning a pocketknife and walking down the street troubles me.

Anyways, this is just one of many situations where something like this happened. It is unfair and certainly unjust that the police do not have to abide by the same laws as regular citizens, and get off consistently regardless of how brutal they act towards the citizens. The cops who shot that marine 60 times in his own house because they thought he had weed (which it turns out he didn't) is a great example. Do they not give training on escalation of force anymore? I always recall the general rule was that you signed up for a dirty job and as such you better be damn sure before pulling the trigger, because like with this marine, one cop panicking and pulling the trigger sends all of the other improperly trained cops/swat team into a frenzy and some kid ends up getting shot 60 times in his own house for committing no crime. He survived 2 tours of duty just to be shot 60 times for the suspicion that he may have had marijuana. I am legally prescribed marijuana though I do not use it any more, but the current laws say cops can kick in my door and shoot me or my family without reprimand and that troubles me as a citizen.

And what's worse is that the police lie about it every time and we have to fight to get the truth, which does eventually come out most of the time, but the fact that the automatic reaction is to immediately cover it up is what I have a problem with.


My hat is off to all of the good police officers who are abiding by their oath to protect the citizens, but I have no sympathy for a soldier or a police officer who knowingly murders someone, then lies about it, then gets away with it. Back in the day he would be hanging from a tree where he belongs, for all to see the shame that he has brought upon himself, his profession, and his community. We expect drug dealers and rapists and murderers and robbers to be held accountable for their crimes, so why not our police force as well? It wreaks of fascism.

[sgreger1]

It's apparently the way of the sgreger. Wish I could say it was limited to the US, but this just seems to be the new reality. If you aren't "one of the boys", the establishment can phucking kill you and buy off your family to shut up.
If that kind of shit isn't grounds for us to rise up, I don't know what is.
But you know that won't happen. Theyve lulled the masses into idiocy and apathy with so called entertainment. As long as we have our tv, who cares right?

"Rising up" is considered an act of terrorism and you would be detained indefinitely and tortured without trial or due process for the act of "rising up", that is why people don't rise up. And the American media is very censored so they don't discuss this pressing issue properly, and soon it will be illegal (already is in some states) to even videotape police brutality. Fascism creeps at our doorstep.



The third wave:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave

[NonServiam]

Again, we give the death penalty to murderers, and this officer being expected to know the law more than a regular citizen, should be held to the same standard. His life should be taken for his blatant abuse of the power that was assigned to him .

I agree there needs to be some serious house cleaning done and supervisors/administration need to stop being friends to the officers under them. That's where it all starts, along with the initial selection process to try to weed some of these folks out.

As far as the officer getting the death penalty, I would have to disagree. Accountable, possible prison time, YES. Death, NO.

If it was premeditated and done completely out of malice then yes, do away with him (and it might have been, I don't know). I understand we have an issue here of possible abuse of power, but honestly if he was charged, it would probably be 2nd degree murder and in most heat of the moment murders stemming from an altercation between two individuals where one kills the other out of "self-defense", and it is found he wasn't justified in killing the other, it is rare that a death penalty is imposed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your reasoning for making the punishment death is based upon the cop's abuse of power. I don't know if it was an abuse of power. I think he is not a very sound thinker or decision maker under stress, made a huge mistake, and started lying during the internal because in hindsight he knew he screwed the pooch and started scrambling to save his ass.

I would like to hear what his co-workers have to say about working with him. Was he a badge heavy egotistical idiot? Was he not very bright or too immature for the job? Or was he a fine officer that made a very, very poor decision that day costing another man his life?

But I agree, in blatant abuses of power where they commit cold murder, absolute death penalty. I just don't know if that is the case here.

[sgreger1]

I agree there needs to be some serious house cleaning done and supervisors/administration need to stop being friends to the officers under them. That's where it all starts, along with the initial selection process to try to weed some of these folks out.

As far as the officer getting the death penalty, I would have to disagree. Accountable, possible prison time, YES. Death, NO.

If it was premeditated and done completely out of malice then yes, do away with him (and it might have been, I don't know). I understand we have an issue here of possible abuse of power, but honestly if he was charged, it would probably be 2nd degree murder and in most heat of the moment murders stemming from an altercation between two individuals where one kills the other out of "self-defense", and it is found he wasn't justified in killing the other, it is rare that a death penalty is imposed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your reasoning for making the punishment death is based upon the cop's abuse of power. I don't know if it was an abuse of power. I think he is not a very sound thinker or decision maker under stress, made a huge mistake, and started lying during the internal because in hindsight he knew he screwed the pooch and started scrambling to save his ass.

I would like to hear what his co-workers have to say about working with him. Was he a badge heavy egotistical idiot? Was he not very bright or too immature for the job? Or was he a fine officer that made a very, very poor decision that day costing another man his life?

But I agree, in blatant abuses of power where they commit cold murder, absolute death penalty. I just don't know if that is the case here.

I would be happy if he at least had to pay a fine or something at least. Maybe at least $100, but he didn't even get this minor inconvenience which is what bothers me. Try being an inner city kid with a record of MJ possession who shot and killed someone in the back in "self defense" and see how many years you end up doing in the slammer.

My understanding of this specific case was that the officer knew the guy he shot way beforehand and considered him am nuisance, which i why he went straight to shooting him down instead of using less lethal measures. If I, a suburban white kid, were shot for carrying a pocket knife this would all probably be a bigger deal in the media. It's not a matter of race but rather a matter of status, all the police forums are showing posts by cops defending his actions because this individual had been cited for public drunkenness before so they feel it was justified that he was executed. I (and probably ever police officer) have all been a little drunk out in public before i'm sure, so i'm not sure if that is a great justification for taking this man's life.

I know you agree, I wasn't trying to imply by replying to your post that you or the other LEO's of this site would act in a similar manner because I know better than that, it just disheartens me with the frequency at which this is happening. Here in SF they've had to dismiss cases like crazy because of how out of control the non-uniformed police officers have started getting and it's turning into quite a scandal with over 120 people's cases being reversed if I recall correctly. The judge assures that thee officers will be spared no punishment which will include everything "up to and including possible termination from the police force". So they might just get fired? If I send a fax to the wrong number i'd get fired at my job, I wish I had it as easy as these guys.



Man gets pulled over for illegal left turn and, when they ask to search his car, he ask if they have a warrent. Cops brutally beat him, asking him "Where's that warrant now, you ****ing ******?" after the beatdown. Then frame him to cover their asses.





LA police continue to abuse Jeremy Marks, the boy arrested for filming a cop and charged with 'lynching.' Two days ago they raided his home, their guns drawn, without presenting a warrant and took every item he used to communicate with the outside world about his case. And he wasn't the only one.

^^ A police force that is willing to go to such extreme measures to silence its critics has little reason to exist. The argument about if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to be afraid of does not seem to work both ways.

Suit claims motorist called 911 to get medical help for man having a heart attack. Unfortunately the cops show up first and order him to put his hands behind his back, beat and taze the unresponsive man, and then make paramedics wait to treat him. He died minutes later.

Cop steals $249 from drug suspect. Drug suspect actually an undercover FBI agent. Oops...

Cops in Calumet Park IL pat down a bunch of teenagers and find nothing. 16 year-old cracks wise so cop arrest the teen, then sweep his feet out while raising his arms up, driving the face of the cuffed teen into the ground causing serious dental damage. Lies in report to cover up.

Police taser a man for using profanity; write police report saying he was running away when tasered. Video surfaces of him standing still being surrounded by 5 officers.

Austin police officer Steven Willis sees deaf people signing and decides it's public disturbance so he detains them and then arrest the girl for not obeying commands he verbalized to her back.

Man has diabetic seizure so his roommate calls 911. Police arrive to help the man who is lying on the floor foaming at the mouth and taze him 11 times in 56 seconds.

A wrong door raid the SFPD will seriously regret. They cuffed a law professor and he pledges to sue until "I see [the agents'] houses sold at auction and their kids' college tuitions taken away from them. There will not be a better litigated case this century."

Cop chokes skateboarder, Chases another who took photos, headlocks teen girl. Threatens to mace another. This is pathetic.

Eighth Grader Executed for Scaring a Cop



Good Samaritan in Albuquerque finds abandoned backpack containing beer, cigs, and a computer across from a high school and decides to do something about it so kids won't be tempted. He is immediately arrested and spends night in jail for felony larceny by cops that placed it there in a sting.

Video of 5 cops brutally beating teenager while he is down, kicking him and beating him repeatedly into a bloody pulp

Queens police order woman to pick up dog crap that didn't come from her dog. When she shows them it's too cold to be her dogs they cuff her, throw her in the patrol car, and then severely beat her.

Illinois state trooper Matt Mitchell was doing 126 MPH sending email and chatting on his phone when he struck a car head on causing a raging fire that killed the two teenage sisters inside. He gets probation and the family gets $8 million.

^^ This i what bothers me the most, the police officers can do whatever they want because they know if they **** up it's not them who get in trouble or have to pay, they just use taxpayer money to pay off the family with millions. This is not in all PD's, but in enough to where it is a problem.

We justify going after terrorists muslims because "even if 10% are extremists that's too many, and a serious threat to our society", so the same should be applied to our domestic forces which does far more damage to american citizens each year than any terrorists have in the history of America.


And, unrelated: TSA being sued after detaining man with 4th Amendment written on his chest

He went there knowing he would not do the advanced imaging and do the pat-down instead. He was making it easy for them and in the process he wanted to communicate his objection for doing so.

He was charged with disorderly conduct.



And those are all from just this past year. I could list more but it would take a team of professional full time employees to post all of the accounts including videos for all of the thousands of times this happens each year.

[Owens187]

http://www.newser.com/story/119757/c...al-dancer.html

By RUSSELL GOLDMAN (@GoldmanRussell)
May 30, 2011




The U.S. Park Police are investigating whether excessive force was used in the arrest of five protesters Saturday, who silently danced in the interior of the Jefferson Memorial to protest a recent ruling against dancing at federal monuments.
Videos posted to YouTube over the weekend show park police officers in light blue polo shirts handcuffing dancers. It looked as if one protester, who was wearing a "Disobey" T-shirt, had been body-slammed by an officer, and choked.
In a YouTube video of Saturday's incident, when a police officer asked the protestors which one of them was the leader, a member of the group pointed toward the statue of Thomas Jefferson inside the rotunda.
"I'll give you a warning," the officer said calmly. "If you come out here and you demonstrate by dancing, you will be placed under arrest. ... Does everybody understand that?"
Groups looking to protest at federal monuments are required to obtain permits.
Park Police spokesman Sgt. David Schlosser told the Associated Press Monday that the Park Police chief had directed the Office of Professional Responsibility to conduct an investigation into the officers' conduct.
The dancers were protesting a January 2011 decision by a federal judge who'd ruled that dancing quietly at the memorial was an illegal demonstration and not an expression of free speech.
On April 12, 2008, on the eve of Jefferson's 265th birthday, 17 dancers wore headphones and silently sashayed around the interior of the memorial. One woman was arrested. Although criminal charges against her were dropped, one of the other protesters filed a suit against the U.S. Park Service, claiming the arrest was illegal.
"The purpose of the memorial is to publicize Thomas Jefferson's legacy, so that critics and supporters alike may contemplate his place in history," U.S. District Judge John Bates wrote in his decision.
"Prohibiting demonstrations is a reasonable means of ensuring a tranquil and contemplative mood at the Jefferson Memorial," he wrote.

[RobsanX]

We are signing away our rights at a rapid pace lately...

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

By Dan Carden dan.carden@nwi.com, (317) 637-9078 | Posted: Friday, May 13, 2011 3:56 pm
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

[TheJanitor]

Everyone should watch this when you have the time.

"Never Talk To The Police"

As you all know, I have no problems with cops, but I'll be damned if I talk to one without a lawyer. I'm not stupid.

[RobsanX]

I didn't watch the video, but there are sneaky things that police do to try to get you to incriminate yourself. Like "Do you know why I pulled you over?", or "Do you know how fast you were going?"

Your answer goes into his notebook, which will subsequently be used against you in court.

[Bigblue1]

I didn't watch the video, but there are sneaky things that police do to try to get you to incriminate yourself. Like "Do you know why I pulled you over?", or "Do you know how fast you were going?"

Your answer goes into his notebook, which will subsequently be used against you in court.

Which should not be admissible, according to the 5th amendment.........


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_A...s_Constitution

[GoVegan]

I didn't watch the video, but there are sneaky things that police do to try to get you to incriminate yourself. Like "Do you know why I pulled you over?", or "Do you know how fast you were going?"

Your answer goes into his notebook, which will subsequently be used against you in court.

I have heard the opposite and cops will usually be more lenient if you don't play semantics with them. I think there me be some truth to that. They probably hear BS excuses about 90% of the time and a sincere "won't do it again" might go a long way.

[Bigblue1]

I have heard the opposite and cops will usually be more lenient if you don't play semantics with them. I think there me be some truth to that. They probably hear BS excuses about 90% of the time and a sincere "won't do it again" might go a long way.

Come on Vegan, back in the 50's it was like that, when cops weren't para-militarized revenue generating producers. You would be a fool to tell a cop that yes I know I was speeding or had a couple beers. It is an admission of guilt that should not hold up in a court of law unless you have been properly mirandized. The fifth amendment is very clear on the point of self incriminating. On the same point, I haven't admitted to a speeding ticket in years, I always go to court with an attorney friend of mine. Yeah I have to buy him dinner and usually pay a smaller fine than the suckers who mail it in and have to go to traffic school do. Seriously guys wake up and stand up for your rights a little. Think about what you just said, if I'm nice to the cop and lick his boots a little, maybe he will be nice to me. Oh it makes me ill......... I'm sure the jews who were effed with by the brown shirts thought the same thing.......