Abuse of Power Thread (Cops, Governments, Etc.) - Part 1

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

It's not against the law to insult the president, why should a person end up in jail for insulting a cop?

Preaching to the choir here my friend. But I bet you most things said on the net about the Prez ends you up on some kind of Govt watchlist. I was just commenting on how some cops are beaten down by their chosen profession from working bad areas and it can make any good cop complacent or even okay with abusing their power. Which in turn breeds a new generation that hear nothing but bad stories from their elders and then experience it themselves. It's just sad and something has to change or it will keep on going forever

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Preaching to the choir here my friend. But I bet you most things said on the net about the Prez ends you up on some kind of Govt watchlist. I was just commenting on how some cops are beaten down by their chosen profession from working bad areas and it can make any good cop complacent or even okay with abusing their power. Which in turn breeds a new generation that hear nothing but bad stories from their elders and then experience it themselves. It's just sad and something has to change or it will keep on going forever

It's a vicious cycle that will take both sides getting past all the bad history and actually working together, not against one another.

 

[warhorse78]

It's not against the law to insult the president, why should a person end up in jail for insulting a cop?

Has there ever been an incident where a US president was actually verbally insulted? I know Clinton had a father of one of the Army Rangers killed during the battle of Mogadishy refuse to speak to him and slapped his hand away when Clinton went to shake hands with the father, but that was the only thing I can recall that stood out.

Anyways, in the past, my dad got pulled over because one of the break lights on his boat trailer was out, and my dad got so pissed because of the ticket fine, he cussed the cop out, and the cop arrested him for disturbing the peace/breach of peace and disorderly conduct, so there are laws out there where cops can arrest you if you are hostile with them. I'm not saying it's right, but, just do what my dad did. He went along peacefully, my mom got a lawyer, got him out and the charges dropped, and then we sued the Sheriff's Department for a small fee. We won $8,000.

 

[Hotwire]

And that's just so stupid.

Be that as it may, it's still one of the possible consequences.

 

[KevanG]

Has there ever been an incident where a US president was actually verbally insulted? I know Clinton had a father of one of the Army Rangers killed during the battle of Mogadishy refuse to speak to him and slapped his hand away when Clinton went to shake hands with the father, but that was the only thing I can recall that stood out.

Anyways, in the past, my dad got pulled over because one of the break lights on his boat trailer was out, and my dad got so pissed because of the ticket fine, he cussed the cop out, and the cop arrested him for disturbing the peace/breach of peace and disorderly conduct, so there are laws out there where cops can arrest you if you are hostile with them. I'm not saying it's right, but, just do what my dad did. He went along peacefully, my mom got a lawyer, got him out and the charges dropped, and then we sued the Sheriff's Department for a small fee. We won $8,000.

If you want to you can go to one of the speeches the President makes and boo him or whatever. They'll just ask you to leave/remove you.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I just make it a point to treat everyone who is on their job with a little respect because you never know when you'll need them in the future. I equate antagonizing a cop to someone mistreating a waiter or cook in that I wouldn't expect good service if you piss them off too much.

Well if a waiter or cook ticketed people and threatened to arrest them for eating to fast and too slow or eating their salad with the wrong fork, it's going to build resentment.

But waiters and cooks don't harrass and control people. I show them respect because they do nothing but serve and help me. I can't say the same about the police.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Has there ever been an incident where a US president was actually verbally insulted? I know Clinton had a father of one of the Army Rangers killed during the battle of Mogadishy refuse to speak to him and slapped his hand away when Clinton went to shake hands with the father, but that was the only thing I can recall that stood out.

Anyways, in the past, my dad got pulled over because one of the break lights on his boat trailer was out, and my dad got so pissed because of the ticket fine, he cussed the cop out, and the cop arrested him for disturbing the peace/breach of peace and disorderly conduct, so there are laws out there where cops can arrest you if you are hostile with them. I'm not saying it's right, but, just do what my dad did. He went along peacefully, my mom got a lawyer, got him out and the charges dropped, and then we sued the Sheriff's Department for a small fee. We won $8,000.

I remember a guy after Hurricane Katrina who told Vice Presedent Cheney to go f*** himself while he was surveying the area. It made the news and is probably on YouTube.

The secret service didn't do anything.

And I've seen President Obama get heckled during speeches multiple times.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Has there ever been an incident where a US president was actually verbally insulted? I know Clinton had a father of one of the Army Rangers killed during the battle of Mogadishy refuse to speak to him and slapped his hand away when Clinton went to shake hands with the father, but that was the only thing I can recall that stood out.

Anyways, in the past, my dad got pulled over because one of the break lights on his boat trailer was out, and my dad got so pissed because of the ticket fine, he cussed the cop out, and the cop arrested him for disturbing the peace/breach of peace and disorderly conduct, so there are laws out there where cops can arrest you if you are hostile with them. I'm not saying it's right, but, just do what my dad did. He went along peacefully, my mom got a lawyer, got him out and the charges dropped, and then we sued the Sheriff's Department for a small fee. We won $8,000.

The charges were dropped because they were bogus. Catching an attitude is not the same as what he was charged with. A public defender more than likely could have got those charges dropped. Of course thats in regards to today when the SCOTUS has already ruled that it's free speech. I'm assuming that happened before this ruling so it's very possible the cop could have got away with it since it basically would have been his word vs your dad's and we all know how that shakes out with public defenders more often than not

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Yeah if the charges were dropped then the cop probably had a bogus reason for arresting your father.

Cops aren't supposed to arrest people for cussing at them. Like DJ says, people have the freedom of speech and expression.

 

[Golgo-13]

Yeah if the charges were dropped then the cop probably had a bogus reason for arresting your father.

Cops aren't supposed to arrest people for cussing at them. Like DJ says, people have the freedom of speech and expression.

True......but they usually work in an arrest under the guise that you're being disorderly, and/or are disturbing the peace.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

UPDATE: Video of Sam DuBose's Death Drastically Different From the Police Report

University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing was charged Wednesday with the murder of Sam DuBose, 43, an unarmed black driver he had pulled over for an alleged missing license plate. At the indictment announcement, prosecutors also released video from Tensing’s body camera that directly contradicts the police report on DuBose’s death.

In the narrative submitted by officer Eric Weibel, one of the cops who responded to the scene after Tensing shot DuBose in the head, “Officer Tensing stated that he was attempting a traffic stop ... when at some point, he began to be dragged by a male black driver. ... Officer Tensing stated that he was almost run over by the driver, and was forced to shoot the driver with his duty weapon. ... Officer Tensing repeated that he was dragged by the vehicle and had to fire his weapon.”

Another officer, Phillip Kidd, apparently backed Tensing’s account. Weibel writes, “Officer Kidd told me that he witnessed the Honda Accord drag Officer Tensing, and that he witnessed Officer Tensing fire a single shot.”

But that’s not precisely what we see on the body camera video. Officer Tensing can be heard questioning DuBose about his license, while DuBose insists that it’s not suspended, but he doesn’t have it with him. They go back and forth on this point for a few moments, until Tensing orders DuBose to take off his seatbelt. DuBose puts one hand on the car window and the other on the key in the ignition. Seconds later, Tensing takes his gun out and shoots DuBose—who is now holding both hands up—once in the head.

According to the prosecution—and this squares with the video evidence—the car didn’t start moving until after Tensing fired the fatal shot.

“It is our belief that he was not dragged. If you slow down this tape you see what happens, it is a very slow period of time from when the car starts rolling to when a gun is out and he’s shot in the head,” Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said Wednesday.

He said Tensing fell back after firing the shot, and the car—which accelerated when DuBose’s dead body slumped and “his foot must have pressed on the gas”—didn’t pull him at all.

University of Cincinnati police chief Jason Goodrich claimed July 20 that, when asked for his license, DuBose instead, “produced a bottle of alcohol from inside the car, handing it to Officer Tensing.”

In the video, DuBose does hand over what appears to be a pint bottle of gin, but he does so in response to a direct request from Tensing. Tensing asks him what’s in it, but his response isn’t clearly audible.

“This is, in the vernacular, a pretty chicken-crap stop, all right?” Deters said Wednesday, “And – I could use harsher words.”

“I’ve been doing this for 30 years. This is the most asinine act I’ve ever seen a police officer make, totally unwarranted.”

http://gawker.com/video-of-sam-duboses-death-drastically-different-from-t-1720896658

Video is at the link

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

UPDATE: U. of Cincinnati Cop Who Killed Sam DuBose Pleads Not Guilty to Murder

Ray Tensing, the University of Cincinnati police officer who killed Sam DuBose during a routine traffic stop on July 19, pleaded not guilty to murder this morning. His bond was set at $1 million.

Tensing was indicted and arrested yesterday for fatally shooting DuBose in the head after pulling the 43-year-old over for an allegedly missing license plate. Video from Tensing’s body camera captured the horrific shooting and directly contradicted the police report on DuBose’s death.

http://gawker.com/u-of-cincinnati-cop-who-killed-sam-dubose-pleads-not-g-1721061439

Video of him in court at the link

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Cop Shot at Fleeing Teens Who Mistakenly Knocked on Door

Three New Jersey teenagers were detained for several hours this weekend after they mistakenly knocked on the door of a state trooper who then shot at them as they drove away, the NY Daily News reports.

According to state prosecutors, the teens mistook the home of Trooper Kissinger Barreau for that of their friend who lived next door, knocking on the house’s front and back doors early Sunday morning. Believing them to be burglars, authorities say Barreau then chased the fleeing teens and shot at their car. From NJ.com:

The teens began to walk back down the driveway, and then ran to their car when the door opened, [18-year-old Jesse] Barkhorn said. As they maneuvered around two cars on the cul-de-sac, they saw a laser [gunsight], he said.

“We realize it’s a gun and we panic. I’m like ‘dude, dude, dude, accelerate,’” Barkhorn said.

The trooper fired three shots, one of which hit a front tire, Barkhorn said. About 1½; miles away, on Butternut Way, the car came to a stop​

The teens say they then called police to report the shooting and were arrested for suspected attempted burglary. Nine hours later, they were released without charges.

CBS New York reports that no criminal charges have been filed against the trooper, who remains on active duty while the shooting is being investigated.

“This officer should have controlled himself,” former Union County Prosecutor Ted Romankow told NJ.com on Thursday. “To start waving a gun and shooting, I think is beyond the pale.”

http://gawker.com/prosecutors-cop-shot-at-unarmed-teens-who-mistakenly-k-1721231216

Well, we all know most burglars start the process by knocking on as many doors as possible so that the homeowners know they're there

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Does the Indictment of a Killer Cop Mean That Body Cams Work?

University of Cincinnati Police Officer Ray Tensing has been indicted for murder in the shooting of Samuel Dubose, an unarmed black man. According to prosecutor Joseph Deters, video captured by Tensing’s body camera was the critical piece of evidence in the decision to pursue charges. Does this mean that cameras work?

Tensing shot Dubose during a traffic stop on July 19th, and later maintained that he had no choice but to shoot Dubose. Body camera footage told an entirely different story: An innocent man gets shot in the head when the conversation gets heated.

Deters was unequivocal in his language at the press conference announcing the charges. “It was a senseless, asinine shooting,” he said according to the New York Times. We never would have known for sure how senseless the murder was if not for body cameras, and the case has reignited the movement that started last year to strap cameras to all officers.

After condemning Tensing, prosecutor Deters served up a detail that tells us more about how cop cams figure into the future of policing. “This office has probably reviewed 100 police shootings, and this is the first time we’ve thought, ‘This is without question a murder,’” he said according to the Times.

In other words, it’s smarter to see this case as the exception. This only the second time body camera footage has led to charges against an officer in the United States. Back in January, two Albuquerque police officers were indicted in the killing of a homeless, mentally ill man.

More than 3,000 police agencies in the United States have adopted cameras, according to Taser, the company that makes them. Back in March, the company told me it had sold more than 25,000 cameras in the United States. That number is bigger now, since body cameras have been flying off the shelves.

Body cameras are overwhelmingly used to maintain the innocence of officers in cases of citizen complaints. There’s a strong bias towards not indicting officers for murder generally, and as I reported back in March, there’s very little evidence to suggest that cameras will be commonly used as a means for holding individual officers accountable for crimes against innocent civilians. The best we can hope for is that the cameras will be used in training and for meta-level corrections in police behavior.

More cameras are coming, thanks to loads of federal funding and widespread public support. Even surveillance-sensitive organizations like the ACLU back the technology. It may prove a useful tool in some capacities, but let’s not imagine that body cams have the power to solve the many problems with violent and racist police officers in America. These are problems that technology cannot fix.

http://gizmodo.com/does-the-indictment-of-a-killer-cop-mean-that-body-cams-1721128302

What's everyone's thoughts on this? Does it seem like cams will prevent abuses or only in rare cases?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I support body cams for the police because I believe it forces them to make professional and responsible choices.

Plus it protects the police from false abuse claims.

The only thing is all the footage needs to archived and overseen by a public oversight group, not the police themselves.

 

[warhorse78]

Yeah if the charges were dropped then the cop probably had a bogus reason for arresting your father.

Cops aren't supposed to arrest people for cussing at them. Like DJ says, people have the freedom of speech and expression.

But they do, and the law is already there for them to arrest your ass if you do get verbally hostile with them, like I said, it's called breach of peace or disorderly conduct. You just can't convicted for those things.

 

[warhorse78]

I support body cams for the police because I believe it forces them to make professional and responsible choices.

Plus it protects the police from false abuse claims.

The only thing is all the footage needs to archived and overseen by a public oversight group, not the police themselves.

Fck that ****! I'm pretty sure me and a good million plus if not more would be quick to get our lawyers and sue such a thing because of the privacy act. If for some reason a cop has to pull me over or come into my house, I don't want you or anyone else up in my business!

If they do use body cams, I prefer the approach below to be used. But really, I just don't like the idea of archived police video being available to the public. What if the cops are arresting some seriously dangerous people, and their recording happened to catch an informant or a witness? Would you want the criminals having access to those people and going after them?

Anyways, I got this from a site that shares my concern about bodycam footage being available to the public. The bolded part I am in favor of.

“Who’s going to police the policemen if no one can have access to the footage except for them?” Michael said.

Lawmakers in several states have offered different approaches to find the right balance between transparency and privacy — an issue that became an afterthought amid the rush to pin cameras on officers’ shirts.
A bill pending in Georgia would release recordings only to those involved in a video or to someone who filed a complaint. Legislators in Oregon are considering a measure allowing videos to be released only if they’re part of a court proceeding or if they involve officer-used force. Seattle puts most of its video on the Internet but blurs the entire screen, leaving shapes visible but indistinct and without sound.

D.C. police aren’t waiting for the debate or a new law to tell the public that body camera recordings are off-limits and are denying all public-record requests for recordings. The agency writes that it lacks the ability to “make the necessary audio and visual redactions” but says it would make the video available to some select people, including those recorded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...ef64f8-e360-11e4-81ea-0649268f729e_story.html

And now here is another thing, are the cops to wear the cams 24/7? In my county, the cops are always on duty and even drive their patrol car home with them. I can't see them agreeing to a body cam being used around their own family or within their home.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Does the Indictment of a Killer Cop Mean That Body Cams Work?



http://gizmodo.com/does-the-indictment-of-a-killer-cop-mean-that-body-cams-1721128302

What's everyone's thoughts on this? Does it seem like cams will prevent abuses or only in rare cases?

Well it definitely didn't prevent a cop from killing an innocent man in Cincinnati

 

[Docker2.0]

Fck that ****! I'm pretty sure me and a good million plus if not more would be quick to get our lawyers and sue such a thing because of the privacy act. If for some reason a cop has to pull me over or come into my house, I don't want you or anyone else up in my business!

If they do use body cams, I prefer the approach below to be used. But really, I just don't like the idea of archived police video being available to the public. What if the cops are arresting some seriously dangerous people, and their recording happened to catch an informant or a witness? Would you want the criminals having access to those people and going after them?

Anyways, I got this from a site that shares my concern about bodycam footage being available to the public. The bolded part I am in favor of.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...ef64f8-e360-11e4-81ea-0649268f729e_story.html

And now here is another thing, are the cops to wear the cams 24/7? In my county, the cops are always on duty and even drive their patrol car home with them. I can't see them agreeing to a body cam being used around their own family or within their home.

I can't believe they are thinking about passing that law. Those body cams have exposed a lot of corrupt cops for what they really are................and at the same time cost the city and states millions because of those same cops. So I guess it makes sense for them to do so knowing that those corrupt cops are out there killing and framing innocent civilians.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

UPDATE: Other Officers at Scene Won't Be Charged for Lies in Sam DuBose Killing

Two University of Cincinnati police officers who witnessed fellow cop Ray Tensing fatally shoot unarmed black driver Sam DuBose will not face criminal charges. Officers Phillip Kidd and David Lindenschmidt gave accounts of the shooting that turned out to be inconsistent with the footage from Tensing’s body camera. A grand jury declined to indict Kidd and Lindenschmidt, prosecutors announced Friday.

Tensing, facing murder charges for killing DuBose, said in a police report that he fired his weapon only after DuBose’s car began dragging him down the street. The same report notes that Officer Kidd claimed he saw Tensing being dragged and saw him fire a single shot.

“It was unclear how much of this incident OIT Lindenschmidt witnessed,” the report noted.

A body camera video released Wednesday called into question the officers’ claim that Tensing was dragged before he fired the shot that killed DuBose. Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters argued Wednesday that the car began moving only after DuBose was dead, and that his foot must have pressed the accelerator after he was shot.

Kidd and Lindenschmidt were placed on leave Thursday amid protests calling for the DA to “charge the second officer”—meaning Kidd—with lying.

Videos from their body cameras show both Kidd and Lindenschmidt at the scene, listening to Tensing say he was dragged and agreeing that’s what happened.

But Deters on Friday said “no charges were warranted,” because both officers had changed their story in their official interviews. According to a statement from his office:

“Two UC officers arrived on the scene as Tensing was reaching into Mr Dubose’s car. Both officers made comments at the scene but later were interviewed in depth by Cincinnati Police Officers about what they had had witnessed. In their official interviews, neither officer said that they had seen Tensing being dragged.”​

Deters acknowledged there was “confusion over the way the initial incident report was drafted,” but noted that it wasn’t a sworn statement. In official interviews and in front of the grand jury, their testimony has been consistent: there was no dragging.

Tensing pleaded not guilty Thursday.

http://gawker.com/other-officers-at-scene-wont-be-charged-for-lies-in-sam-1721385098

So it looks lie they initially lied and then figured out this was going to not be the best case to lie about

 

[warhorse78]

I can't believe they are thinking about passing that law. Those body cams have exposed a lot of corrupt cops for what they really are................and at the same time cost the city and states millions because of those same cops. So I guess it makes sense for them to do so knowing that those corrupt cops are out there killing and framing innocent civilians.

Which law? There were several on the table.

 

[Lencho01]

The full video of Dubose and Tensing has been released.

Also, due to donations, Tensing made his $1 million bail.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

But they do, and the law is already there for them to arrest your ass if you do get verbally hostile with them, like I said, it's called breach of peace or disorderly conduct. You just can't convicted for those things.

No, it's against the constitution to arrest me for expressing myself.

A cops pride isn't above the US constitution, is it?

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Fck that ****! I'm pretty sure me and a good million plus if not more would be quick to get our lawyers and sue such a thing because of the privacy act. If for some reason a cop has to pull me over or come into my house, I don't want you or anyone else up in my business!

If they do use body cams, I prefer the approach below to be used. But really, I just don't like the idea of archived police video being available to the public. What if the cops are arresting some seriously dangerous people, and their recording happened to catch an informant or a witness? Would you want the criminals having access to those people and going after them?

Anyways, I got this from a site that shares my concern about bodycam footage being available to the public. The bolded part I am in favor of.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...ef64f8-e360-11e4-81ea-0649268f729e_story.html

And now here is another thing, are the cops to wear the cams 24/7? In my county, the cops are always on duty and even drive their patrol car home with them. I can't see them agreeing to a body cam being used around their own family or within their home.

I think you're misunderstanding the point he was trying to make. He isn't saying all the video should be uploaded to the internet for anyone to click on. He is saying there should be an independent third party in charge of making sure none of the footage is tampered with and available when the relevant parties need access to it. I support something like that. I got my ass kicked by the cops one night when I was blackout drunk for talking smack to them and when I requested the video because I wanted to sue them for police brutality they said there was no video which was BS since anytime the lights are flipped on the video is rolling. If the police themselves are the only ones with access to the video it kind of defeats the whole purpose of recording them

 

[warhorse78]

I think you're misunderstanding the point he was trying to make. He isn't saying all the video should be uploaded to the internet for anyone to click on. He is saying there should be an independent third party in charge of making sure none of the footage is tampered with and available when the relevant parties need access to it. I support something like that. I got my ass kicked by the cops one night when I was blackout drunk for talking smack to them and when I requested the video because I wanted to sue them for police brutality they said there was no video which was BS since anytime the lights are flipped on the video is rolling. If the police themselves are the only ones with access to the video it kind of defeats the whole purpose of recording them

Then who would be this third party? What's stopping this third party from being paid off or threatened by the other two parties? Maybe we're looking at this from the wrong angle. In Russia, I believe they made in mandatory for everyone who drives a car to have dashboard cams on them, perhaps we can do the same here and give some sort of financial incentive for doing that, like knocking off a percentage from the insurance bill. I got surveilance on my big truck I use to pull my horse trailer and in the horse trailer itself to watch the cargo, and because of this, I got a huge discount on my insurance bill.