twa Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 so the defense attorney is free to investigate and flaunt the law but the cops must be courteous, kind and communicate their desires well? sounds like a wife. I admit it is easier after they haul her off in chains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 There are good cops around. But sadly the bad cops dominate the news. And give those that are good a bad name. But how good of a cop are you, if you turn a blind eye to your fellow officers breaking the law? Their duty is to protect and serve the citizens, not their co-worker. They are actually refusing to uphold their duty when they turn a blind eye to, cover up or lie for these bad officers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 so the defense attorney is free to investigate and flaunt the law but the cops must be courteous, kind and communicate their desires well? Lawyers are bound by their rules of Professional Conduct, which places a duty on attorneys to zealously represent and defend their client, and she is permitted to assist others in not having their rights violated. Cops are duty bound to not violate people's rights in the course of their duties. All outer appearances were that right violations may have been occurring at the time the lawyer rolled up. The attorney did not get any information from the cop to dispel her suspicions, indeed the cop likely heightened them by being vague and dismissive of the attorney. When there's a conflict between these two, shouldn't the burden of clearing up the problem fall on the guy with the information that could clear up the situation? But I get your view. The cop here can do no wrong. Doesn't matter if he danced all over the 5th Amendment line, or made it appear to everyone that he violated these guys' 6th amendment rights. Doesn't matter that he could have easily defused the situation by actually explaining his purpose, and not being vague and dismissive. Doesn't matter that his go-to response to anyone questioning his authority is to immediately put them in cuffs. Doesn't matter. Cops should be allowed to investigate without anyone getting in their way, even if there's a damn good reason to question what they're doing. We don't need those pesky Constitutional rights, right? I mean, HEAVEN FORBID a cop actually have to EXPLAIN THEMSELVES and use some bloody RESTRAINT in the course of their duties, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) Sometimes if you just let people blow off some steam, they eventually calm down and relax a little and accept what is going on, even if they aren't necessarily happy about it. Instead what I am often seeing in these cases is that the second the citizen doesn't 100% conform and obey or even when they do seem like they are going to, but just throw in a little attitude, the cops immediately fly off the handle and pull the "how dare you not respect my authority, now it's on" card, when it feels completely unnecessary. You can look at it like this. If you live long enough you see good, bad, indifferent customer service. Some people are just better at dealing with people. Cops, like the rest of the people, deal with people differently. It would be great if they were all great customer relations and were good at reading people to know when they can let someone "blow off some steam" and when they have to take action. You customer services, wait staff, etc. are just plain dicks (using a basic analogy), and some cops are just plain dicks. However, cops deal with bad people. Cops also deal with A holes. Cops deal with bad people that are A holes. People far worse then some wacko in billing (not saying those people are not extremely difficult), but cops get the ones that are extremely difficult that are drunk, high, mental or a combination thereof. Not here to be pro for or against, but customer service reps get an idea of what it is like to deal with day in and day out garbage that cops that work in the cities or other bad areas have to deal with. But, they just get an idea. That A hole generally is also not going to hurt you, spit on you, etc. and commit crimes that said cops have to deal with. Customer service reps get to hang up or tell the person to leave the store, etc. Edited July 25, 2015 by Fred Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Dog, I like your point about defusing the situation by explaining to the subject why they were stopped by the cops. Generally, I think that works. Unfortunately, however, that does not always work. Sometimes the subject just throws it back in the cops face, explaining that they did not do, were not involved in or just arguing the reason for the stop. These subjects (difficult people, lying criminals, A holes, people that don't like cops) make it difficult on everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Dog, I like your point about defusing the situation by explaining to the subject why they were stopped by the cops. Generally, I think that works. Unfortunately, however, that does not always work. Sometimes the subject just throws it back in the cops face, explaining that they did not do, were not involved in or just arguing the reason for the stop. These subjects (difficult people, lying criminals, A holes, people that don't like cops) make it difficult on everyone. Oh yeah, some people definitely are overly belligerent. It's still prickly to excuse short fuses or vagueness for officers. Like, there's a pretty easy to set line in terms of explaining things, and as soon as officers cross that threshold of explanation, then there's no issue, and they can take their actions, but I think we've all got to be wary of lowering the burden officers have to demonstrate that they aren't overstepping their authority, especially in cases where there's a fairly clear appearance that they may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 seems much simpler to remove her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 seems much simpler to remove her. I mean, searching homes without warrants is simpler too, but you still have to get warrants (unless an exception exists). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 That is because most of the country is really, really dumb. I hate assholes. Not nearly all cops are assholes. Most of the country won't hate cops when they need them. I will and yes, I'll still expect them to do their damn jobs. They aren't paid to care about the public's opinion of them, they're paid to do their jobs. I've been out of the box for a while but thought I'd add a couple more of these "good" cops to the list. LAPD Cops Busted, Laughing and ‘Fistbumping’ As They Beat Handcuffed Nurse Even though she was handcuffed, I'm sure the good officers were in grave fear of their lives. Looks like she just missed killing them and escaping. Good thing for her they were "good" cops and didn't just shoot her. It will be interesting to hear the officer's side of the story. Of course, our wonderful salt of the earth sworn officers of the law would never, ever bend the truth to avoid charges. Or would they??? When Cops Get Caught Sanitizing And Flat-Out Lying About Brutality Few aspects of policing attract more scrutiny than an officer's use of force. And as people around the nation continue to voice concerns about the sometimes contentious relationship between citizens and law enforcement, it's become clear that police and the policed often have drastically different interpretations of the same incidents. In some cases, this disagreement may stem from an honest difference of opinion. Police violence -- and violence in general -- typically looks repulsive, whether you're watching it unfold in person or on video. It regularly leads to questions about whether a situation truly called for the level of force used, and whether anyone's civil rights were violated in the process. But when the question of what's "excessive" is left to an internal review process that tends to give officers a great deal of leeway, what might appear improper to the average citizen is often found to be justified in the eyes of the law. [This story includes videos that contain explicit language and graphic depictions of violence. They may be upsetting for some readers.] A number of high-profile cases over the past few years suggest that something even more disturbing can happen when police are given the responsibility of self-reporting violence. The instances below offer clear evidence of cops -- and in some cases, their superiors -- attempting to sanitize, mischaracterize or simply lie about the use of force. They raise disquieting questions about what might have happened if videos of the incidents had never surfaced -- and how many similar incidents never become known to the public. There are a lot of footage/examples in the above article of officer friendly brutalizing people and bending the truth or outright lying about it however the most interesting to me are the two cases at the bottom. Given the constant refrains that "It's only a few bad apples....." whenever something like this happens, I just want to know, why weren't the "good" apples doing anything to stop those bad apples from sullying the good name of their department? Did any of them report the offending officer? Or, were they too busy smiling about what was going on to be able to stop the brutality or report it later as with the guy in the Michael Bergeron Jr. video? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 http://www.wistv.com/story/29656580/charges-grand-jury-can-consider?clienttype=generic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Well I guess we can stop saying bodycams will keep these cops in check. Cinncinati police officer, with a body cam, shoots a man in the head with zero provocation. This just goes to show that having methods of accountability can't prevent a system designed to prey on certain demographics or make chicken **** cops stop overreacting to any situation. In this chicken****'s report, he claimed he had no choice but to shoot Dubose because he was being dragged by the car. Not only was he not being dragged by the car, but the only reason the car was moving was because Dubose was dead. http://www.wlwt.com/news/body-cam-video-depicting-fatal-shooting-of-sam-dubose-viewer-discretion-advised/34422368 WARNING: There is a video in the link that shows the shooting. Edited July 29, 2015 by Gamebreaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcl05 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Well I guess we can stop saying bodycams will keep these cops in check. Cinncinati police officer, with a body cam, shots a man in the head with zero provocation. This just goes to show that having methods of accountability can't prevent a system designed to prey on certain demographics or make chicken **** cops stop overreacting to any situation. In this chicken****'s report, he claimed he had no choice but to shoot Dubose because he was being dragged by the car. Not only was he not being dragged by the car, but the only reason the car was moving was because Dubose was dead. http://www.wlwt.com/news/body-cam-video-depicting-fatal-shooting-of-sam-dubose-viewer-discretion-advised/34422368 WARNING: There is a video in the link that shows the shooting. At least the murderer is being held accountable. He's been indicted and his supervisors with the Cincy PD all appear to be appropriately disgusted at his behavior. If the video didn't exist, all we would have is his account. People would be defending him all over and would be saying that it was the victim's fault for having provoked the officer. Or some variation of the same BS we've heard about in way too many cases over the past year +. The video here has allowed the truth to be seen and led the guilty to be charged. In that way, this case is an outlier. Thank goodness for the video. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 At least the murderer is being held accountable. He's been indicted and his supervisors with the Cincy PD all appear to be appropriately disgusted at his behavior. If the video didn't exist, all we would have is his account. People would be defending him all over and would be saying that it was the victim's fault for having provoked the officer. Or some variation of the same BS we've heard about in way too many cases over the past year +. The video here has allowed the truth to be seen and led the guilty to be charged. In that way, this case is an outlier. Thank goodness for the video. Well, he's been indicted, not charged. Considering how Eric Garner and the 12 year old boy who was blown away without any hesitiation, I'm not so certain he'll get charged or even convicted for this. This one particularly really angers me because 1) people have been advocating for bodycams as a solution to this ongoing police brutality issue and we see here that a bodycam isn't a deterrent for all of these psychos with a badge, and 2) the fact that if I left my house without my license by accident, I could be shot in the head at a traffic stop while making zero aggressive actions towards the officer is more than a little scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcl05 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Well, he's been indicted, not charged. Considering how Eric Garner and the 12 year old boy who was blown away without any hesitiation, I'm not so certain he'll get charged or even convicted for this. This one particularly really angers me because 1) people have been advocating for bodycams as a solution to this ongoing police brutality issue and we see here that a bodycam isn't a deterrent for all of these psychos with a badge, and 2) the fact that if I left my house without my license by accident, I could be shot in the head at a traffic stop while making zero aggressive actions towards the officer is more than a little scary. Totally agree. But I would say that having the video is better than nothing. Without it, this murdering cop would be paraded around like a hero. Of course, give the internet a few days to spin and he still might be. Ugh. At least he's been indicted. Baby steps. Edited July 29, 2015 by bcl05 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Having body cameras isn't a deterrent. It's proof. If you are wearing a camera, what you say has to mostly match what is visible on the video. It will act as a deterrent when officers realize offenders are being charged based on inaccurate statements. It will not be an immediate change, however. It will take time and require some adjustments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Why are university police making traffic stops? Was that on campus? I am confused. What a piece of ****. Edited July 30, 2015 by Duckus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why are university police making traffic stops? Was that on campus? I am confused. What a piece of ****. No idea if it was his jurisdiction or not, but he's definitely a piece of ****. Yes, Dubose didn't have his license on him. I found his explanation reasonable, despite knowing he'd broken the law by driving without his license. It was his wife's car, he was tired and didn't realize he didn't have the license, he was heading home and home was a couple of blocks away. It would've been fairly easy for the officer to check out his story, instead he was being an asshole. Asking him the same questions over and over, each one more condescending than the last. Then the "Be honest, your license is suspended, right?" So you aren't going to check his story out at all, huh? No idea what his rationale was for shooting him in the head. Having body cameras isn't a deterrent. It's proof. If you are wearing a camera, what you say has to mostly match what is visible on the video. It will act as a deterrent when officers realize offenders are being charged based on inaccurate statements. It will not be an immediate change, however. It will take time and require some adjustments. There have already been cases where officers in some departments create a code which signals their fellow officers to disable their bodycams. Someone on ES posted a video a while ago depicting it happening, lucky for the guy they were abusing the dummies forgot the dashboard camera picked up both video and sound though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why are university police making traffic stops? Was that on campus? I am confused. What a piece of ****. George Mason police make traffic stops all the time by my work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Yeah, what Gamebreaker said in post #642. Exactly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Having body cameras isn't a deterrent. It's proof. If you are wearing a camera, what you say has to mostly match what is visible on the video. It will act as a deterrent when officers realize offenders are being charged based on inaccurate statements. It will not be an immediate change, however. It will take time and require some adjustments. I was going to say that the most likely "adjustments" would be that officer friendly will start disabling the cameras or doing things out of view of the camera or alleging things happened outside the view of the camera to absolve themselves. All they need is one other lying sack of crap...'er cop to agree with their story and your rights are toast. Again. No idea if it was his jurisdiction or not, but he's definitely a piece of ****. Yes, Dubose didn't have his license on him. I found his explanation reasonable, despite knowing he'd broken the law by driving without his license. It was his wife's car, he was tired and didn't realize he didn't have the license, he was heading home and home was a couple of blocks away. It would've been fairly easy for the officer to check out his story, instead he was being an asshole. Asking him the same questions over and over, each one more condescending than the last. Then the "Be honest, your license is suspended, right?" So you aren't going to check his story out at all, huh? No idea what his rationale was for shooting him in the head. There have already been cases where officers in some departments create a code which signals their fellow officers to disable their bodycams. Someone on ES posted a video a while ago depicting it happening, lucky for the guy they were abusing the dummies forgot the dashboard camera picked up both video and sound though. You beat me to it. I don't know what the solution is. For the disabling of cameras, I'd propose a no-tolerance policy. If an independent lab can't find a legitimate reason why the camera was disabled, then it should be an automatic firing and a criminal offense. After all, if I refuse to take a breathalyzer, my license is automatically suspended or revoked so why should they be any better? Second, one of the biggest culprits behind a lot of this behavior is the protection of the police unions. More often than not, it's the unions that allow the bad apples to stick around, whether by getting them rehired, shielding them from prosecution or getting their offenses reduced so that they can get a job as a cop somewhere else. It's funny though that the far right never seems to think all the bad outcomes that result from teachers unions apply to police unions as well. Things that make you go hmmmm. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) https://twitter.com/JasonLawNews/status/626885386657243136/photo/1 BREAKING Former officer charged with murder Ray Tensing bonds out of jail. @WCPO http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/30/university--cincinnati-police-officer-arraignment/30876021/ Cop accused of killing driver out of jail, free on bond A former University of Cincinnati police officer charged with murder in the shooting death of a man he pulled over for a missing front license plate pleaded not guilty in court Thursday and was out of jail on bond less than eight hours later. Ray Tensing, 25, killed Samuel DuBose, 43, on July 19 as the unarmed black man delayed producing his driver's license during the traffic stop near the university's campus. Judge Megan Shanahan of Hamilton County Common Pleas Court set Tensing's bond at $1 million during the arraignment as Tensing bowed his head, closed his eyes and never looked at anyone. Applause broke out in the courtroom when Shanahan set the high bond, but the judge immediately put a stop to it, admonishing spectators. "This is a courtroom," she said. Afterward, Tensing's lawyer, Stewart Mathews, said he would do his best to raise the money to get his client out of jail Thursday, and Tensing left the Hamilton County jail hours later after spending the night behind bars. Anyone can post 10% of a $1 million bond, an amount that can be raised through a lien on a house. Edited July 30, 2015 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Who raised the bond, Sean Hannity? Ann Coulter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 We shouldn't lose sight that another officer witnessed the whole thing and basically repeated the fabricated story. Tensing himself is in the 10-20% of bad cops. The other officer who was there at the scene watching and lying is part of the probably 60-70% out of the remaining 80% that would never kill someone that coldly themselves, but also isn't exactly working to stop/prevent the violence from/turn in these guys. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 We shouldn't lose sight that another officer witnessed the whole thing and basically repeated the fabricated story. Tensing himself is in the 10-20% of bad cops. The other officer who was there at the scene watching and lying is part of the probably 60-70% out of the remaining 80% that would never kill someone that coldly themselves, but also isn't exactly working to stop/prevent the violence from/turn in these guys. Which leads back to the question I asked a couple of pages ago, how can you be considered a good cop when you don't uphold the law at all times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Which leads back to the question I asked a couple of pages ago, how can you be considered a good cop when you don't uphold the law at all times? True. Bad is relative. I guess the Bad cops are BAD Bad, and the Good cops are Good Bad, and then there are GOOD Good cops. I should amend, though, that in the tensing case, this guy, having thought about it, isn't Good Bad, he's Bad Bad. It's one thing to be complicit in a 4th amendment violation and question someone who should have a lawyer, it's another to be an accomplice to murder. Which is basically what this guy did, attempted to aid and comfort this officer who killed a guy with no provocation. One thing though, while trying to bring about systemic changes, it'll be harder if the Good Bad cops are painted as bad too. So long as they're upstanding in the absence of bad cops, they probably need to be allies. Empowering good cops to report and stop bad cops will push systemic change much quicker than going after larger chunks of the police. Edited July 31, 2015 by DogofWar1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now