Who do you believe- cops or wittnesses

[ConHog]

Legitimacy is subjective in the moment. Hindsight, and court rooms, are 20/20.

Completely incorrect. There is a substantive difference between an illegal arrest and an arrest which leads to a person either not being charged or being charged but not found guilty. You have NO right to resist arrest simply because you believe you aren't guilty of whatever crime you are accused of.

[pegwinn]

Completely incorrect.

As if. Read each word that I wrote. You will see that they are perfectly factual and correct. You simply don't agree with it because you are reading into instead of simply reading. I am not playing word games to trap you. I am not trying to score points either. But instead of brevity, I will spell it out.

You have NO right to resist arrest simply because you believe you aren't guilty of whatever crime you are accused of.

I never said that. The discussion was focused on a "legitimate" arrest (your words). My words focused on whether I believed the cop had a right to make the arrest. Or, legitimacy if you will.

In that confrontation, the legitimacy is in the moment. The cop obviously thinks it's a legit arrest or he would not attempt it. I obviously will resist if I believe he has no legitimate right to make the arrest. I would say that the examples used by Gunny and I regarding fat/loud/violent cops define what we consider to be legitimate quite well.

In the courtroom they will of course see it whatever way it goes and they will point to this or that which should have been noted in the moment. That would be 20/20 hindsight.

[Intense]

I told myself i wasn't going to post this type of thing anymore but this just really got to me.
whos story do you believe?

In both cases I believe the Cops totally at fault. Ive seen people lie in court and on the streets both with and without badges, so it's always case by case.

[revelarts]

Rev, except in some very rare circumstances a cop on duty SHOULD be untouchable. This touches on what I was saying a few weeks ago, we have entirely too many people in this country who think it's acceptable behavior to harass/cajole/spit/assault or just flat be belligerent to police and then scream "hey what the fuck" when the cops respond in kind.

You're correct, a cop should be held to the same standards as you as far as behavior goes, if they commit an assault throw their ass in prison. Problem is , not every claim of assault by a cop is in fact an assault. And likewise police should have the same right to defend themselves as you or I. If a drunk old man lays hands on me, I'm defending myself, he may end up hurt. Why shouldn't a cop have that same right? And no, I'm NOT justifying what this particular cop did; but you seem to always be on the "the cop is always wrong" rant. And we both know that just isn't the case.

Be more specific , the rant is the COP in the video or story is wrong , The system that lets them get away with it is wrong and the good cops to report it and people who report it are not WRONG.that's
the jist of my rants.
But I don't have to assume when i can watch TV and Youtube for hours and see cops beating the crap out of people all over the country. And listen to you say how funny it is to watch people tazed for BS. but i'm somehow ranting if i mention it.


Didn't i post a video a few weeks ago about a good cop.
didn't i just mention good cops in the comment above.
Good cops are SOLID GOLD.
my problem is a system that assumes that people who put on uniforms should be given MORE than the benefit of the doubt when It seems too many cops are abusing their very limited authority. To the point of getting away with murder.

good cops are doing their job and it's pretty thankless. but bad cops need to be exposed and fired if on plain facts it appears they have committed criminal acts, that's step one, . Step two they should be tried and sent to jail based on the evidense. People in other jobs get fired after internal investigations that don't have video or a crowd of witnesses, Cops get a desk job or suspended without pay too freaking often. It's a system that's broke and becoming moreso it seems to me the amount of violence on innocents is completely unnecessary.

And I'm going to step out and mention something that's probably going to enflame some folk to the point where they can't think about it rationally. but I hope they can think about it for a minute.

Why don't the good cops report and expose the bad cops more often? MOST are good people. We pay them to catch criminals and to STOP stop assults on innocents and to stop crimes . but it seems it's witnesses and police video that "report" bad cops not those who we are suppose to call we we see "civilians" committing crime.

We get indignant becuase we claim we don't see Muslims denouncing Radical Muslims but whens the last time you saw a cop report and denounce RADICAL Criminal cops. it's rare.

Religion of Peace
Peace Officers

hmmm
Which terrorist should we fear most? they are here. ("doh, he went there.. rev thinks ALL cops are terrorist", uh no, BAD cops are terrorist we pay, train and arm. )

the Peace officers are supposed trained and sworn to protect innocents and put up with a few harsh words. Not be untouchable and overly sensitive like a jerk at bar.


May God bless every decent cop and expose and deal with the bad ones

[logroller]

Completely incorrect. There is a substantive difference between an illegal arrest and an arrest which leads to a person either not being charged or being charged but not found guilty. You have NO right to resist arrest simply because you believe you aren't guilty of whatever crime you are accused of.

De minimis cause still needs to stand to reason. A man relieved of performing life saving measures would be counterinuitive to general harm probabilities; and absent officer joe having a glass jaw, a drunken 84- yr old man's tactile behavior struggles to demonstrate assault, again, which must reasonably infer some degree of probable harm.

[Intense]

Be more specific , the rant is the COP in the video or story is wrong , The system that lets them get away with it is wrong and the good cops to report it and people who report it are not WRONG.that's
the jist of my rants.
But I don't have to assume when i can watch TV and Youtube for hours and see cops beating the crap out of people all over the country. And listen to you say how funny it is to watch people tazed for BS. but i'm somehow ranting if i mention it.


Didn't i post a video a few weeks ago about a good cop.
didn't i just mention good cops in the comment above.
Good cops are SOLID GOLD.
my problem is a system that assumes that people who put on uniforms should be given MORE than the benefit of the doubt when It seems too many cops are abusing their very limited authority. To the point of getting away with murder.

good cops are doing their job and it's pretty thankless. but bad cops need to be exposed and fired if on plain facts it appears they have committed criminal acts, that's step one, . Step two they should be tried and sent to jail based on the evidense. People in other jobs get fired after internal investigations that don't have video or a crowd of witnesses, Cops get a desk job or suspended without pay too freaking often. It's a system that's broke and becoming moreso it seems to me the amount of violence on innocents is completely unnecessary.

And I'm going to step out and mention something that's probably going to enflame some folk to the point where they can't think about it rationally. but I hope they can think about it for a minute.

Why don't the good cops report and expose the bad cops more often? MOST are good people. We pay them to catch criminals and to STOP stop assults on innocents and to stop crimes . but it seems it's witnesses and police video that "report" bad cops not those who we are suppose to call we we see "civilians" committing crime.

We get indignant becuase we claim we don't see Muslims denouncing Radical Muslims but whens the last time you saw a cop report and denounce RADICAL Criminal cops. it's rare.

Religion of Peace
Peace Officers

hmmm
Which terrorist should we fear most? they are here. ("doh, he went there.. rev thinks ALL cops are terrorist", uh no, BAD cops are terrorist we pay, train and arm. )

the Peace officers are supposed trained and sworn to protect innocents and put up with a few harsh words. Not be untouchable and overly sensitive like a jerk at bar.


May God bless every decent cop and expose and deal with the bad ones

my problem is a system that assumes that people who put on uniforms should be given MORE than the benefit of the doubt when It seems too many cops are abusing their very limited authority. To the point of getting away with murder.

Yep. That's why it is so important to remain calm and respectful. You document what you can, get witnesses when you can, even be aware of security cameras that may back you up. In some areas it is now illegal to photograph or film Cops in action. That does seem unconstitutional to me. Funny how those with dirty hands don't like paper trails of any kind either.

[tailfins]

Legitimacy is subjective in the moment. Hindsight, and court rooms, are 20/20.

Filing felony charges isn't a split second decision. That's just as abusive as the physical abuse. Prosecutors are more contemptible than cops. Actually, cops have such an ego that glad-handing them is effective. Barney Fife fits the stereotype in how he reacted to shallow flattery.

[LuvRPgrl]

Yep. That's why it is so important to remain calm and respectful. You document what you can, get witnesses when you can, even be aware of security cameras that may back you up. In some areas it is now illegal to photograph or film Cops in action. That does seem unconstitutional to me. Funny how those with dirty hands don't like paper trails of any kind either.

states are outlawing filming of cops in action

[ConHog]

As if. Read each word that I wrote. You will see that they are perfectly factual and correct. You simply don't agree with it because you are reading into instead of simply reading. I am not playing word games to trap you. I am not trying to score points either. But instead of brevity, I will spell it out.



I never said that. The discussion was focused on a "legitimate" arrest (your words). My words focused on whether I believed the cop had a right to make the arrest. Or, legitimacy if you will.

In that confrontation, the legitimacy is in the moment. The cop obviously thinks it's a legit arrest or he would not attempt it. I obviously will resist if I believe he has no legitimate right to make the arrest. I would say that the examples used by Gunny and I regarding fat/loud/violent cops define what we consider to be legitimate quite well.

In the courtroom they will of course see it whatever way it goes and they will point to this or that which should have been noted in the moment. That would be 20/20 hindsight.

Again, incorrect. The legality of an arrest is not in the moment. An arrest is either legal or it is not. Let's use two examples to illustrate.

In example one a cop punches the suspect in the mouth and then handcuffs him while he is unconscious. Turns out the suspect killed twenty people.

In example two a cop approaches a man , handcuffs him and leads him to the police station. The man doesn't resist at all. The suspect turns out to be completely innocent and is released.

Now, is example one an illegal arrest, is example two? Is either? Is neither?

[pegwinn]

Again, incorrect. The legality of an arrest is not in the moment. An arrest is either legal or it is not. Let's use two examples to illustrate.

In example one a cop punches the suspect in the mouth and then handcuffs him while he is unconscious. Turns out the suspect killed twenty people.

In example two a cop approaches a man , handcuffs him and leads him to the police station. The man doesn't resist at all. The suspect turns out to be completely innocent and is released.

Now, is example one an illegal arrest, is example two? Is either? Is neither?

Your not getting it, or I am not communicating well. We shall agree to disagree and move on. Or, at least I will.

[ConHog]

Your not getting it, or I am not communicating well. We shall agree to disagree and move on. Or, at least I will.

I guess I'm not getting it. Agree to disagree? Not in a case like this. I'm asking what do you consider an illegal arrest? Because that is not something that can be an opinion. An arrest is either legal, or illegal and not up for debate.

[Intense]

states are outlawing filming of cops in action

Court says public has right to video police in public places
By adamg - 8/26/11 - 3:29 pm

A Boston lawyer suing the city and police officers who arrested him for using his cell phone to record a drug arrest on the Common won a victory today when a federal appeals court said the officers could not claim "qualified immunity" because they were performing their job when they arrested him under a state law that bars audio recordings without the consent of both parties.

In its ruling, which lets Simon Glik continue his lawsuit, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said the way Glik was arrested and his phone seized under a state wiretapping law violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights:

The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw." ...

Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

The court noted that past decisions on police recording had involved fulltime reporters, but said the First Amendment does not apply just to professional news gatherers.

http://www.universalhub.com/2011/cou...ng-police-offi

[ConHog]

Court says public has right to video police in public places
By adamg - 8/26/11 - 3:29 pm

A Boston lawyer suing the city and police officers who arrested him for using his cell phone to record a drug arrest on the Common won a victory today when a federal appeals court said the officers could not claim "qualified immunity" because they were performing their job when they arrested him under a state law that bars audio recordings without the consent of both parties.

In its ruling, which lets Simon Glik continue his lawsuit, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said the way Glik was arrested and his phone seized under a state wiretapping law violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights:

The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw." ...

Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

The court noted that past decisions on police recording had involved fulltime reporters, but said the First Amendment does not apply just to professional news gatherers.

http://www.universalhub.com/2011/cou...ng-police-offi

Good decision in my opinion. For the most part anyway. I think there most certainly should be some exceptions , but overall police being videotaped at a traffic stop or whatever harms no one and can only serve to protect all parties involved.

[Intense]

I guess I'm not getting it. Agree to disagree? Not in a case like this. I'm asking what do you consider an illegal arrest? Because that is not something that can be an opinion. An arrest is either legal, or illegal and not up for debate.

Hey Conhog, hope all is well.

I think there are many variables to are missing. There are legal Arrests where Cop's still blow it, there are Legal Arrests where they don't. There are Illegal Arrests where a Cop does not have Cause, Jurisdiction, both examples that Superiors or Courts may have arbitrary power over. There is always interpretation where Humans are concerned. There is always the threat of police abuse when the wrong buttons are pushed. Knowing something, surviving something, and proving it in court is a whole other matter.

[pegwinn]

I guess I'm not getting it. Agree to disagree? Not in a case like this. I'm asking what do you consider an illegal arrest? Because that is not something that can be an opinion. An arrest is either legal, or illegal and not up for debate.

Oh Jeez. I am really trying to remain civil.

In the moment: As in whatever the hell is going on right now. If a cop gets in my face verbally and becomes physical, in that moment I will decide if he's in the right. If yes, then I will allow him to proceed. If I decide he is not in the right (overly violent, whatever) then I will defend myself. If in defending myself, I stomp him flat and leave him for dead then so be it. I make an effort daily to overcome a fast temper and a tendency to settle it physically. If at that moment I'm not convinced that he's in the line of duty, all bets are off.

Hindsight is 20/20: Down the road a court will examine "the moment" and determine who was right, wrong, or neutral. It will determine if the cop should have acted differently or if I should have intuitively known that he was thinking of someone who looked just like me. IOW it is always easier to look back when you were not there and pass judgement. Just ask any JAG during a SCM over ROE violations.

The only way I can spell it out any better would be to type slower. And, I am slow enough already. You may now agree or disagree. As for me, I am unsubbing since I don't intend to let this turn into some form of brawl. C'ya round.