Bad324 Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 Quoted for irony's sake. English is my 2nd language My point was merely that I bet those cops used his thug speech (maybe dressed the part too) to stereotype him as a bigger threat than he was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent2406 Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 With the way all the young white kids speak these days, I thought this was normal speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) So instead of going through all that trouble of changing the law to repeal Posse Comitatus, they merely get around it by granting the police insane amounts of powers (see: civil forfeiture, war on drugs, warrantless seizures, I can go on for days) that all combined have shifted the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.Add to all this the layers upon layers of insulation the police force has had for years, between the FOP, police union, and their own departmental policies, this guy isn't going to lose his job or be subject to the civil/criminal charges he should rightfully face.I don't know what you're talking about... you act like police can just barge into your house for no reason other if they think you're doing something illegal.Search Allowed if Police Hear Evidence Being Destroyedhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17scotus.htmlThere's NO way an officer of the law would abuse that power. Edited June 9, 2011 by JRMMiii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 I like the way you think.... sometimes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 Police have been chasing cameras since cameras were invented. What has changed, is cameras are everywhere, both theirs and ours and everyone else. And every phone is a quick reacting camera.I remember photographing street riots in years past, but you had to be both quick and fast, and a bit sneaky, if you wanted to keep your camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idodishez Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 So just because u didn't get your way, gives a prick cop the right to pull a gun on an unarmed citizen, who was breaking no laws, and subsequently destroy his property. And all thus to cover up what might be a bad shooting. Why isn't this making headlines? Oh, cause they have wiener stories to do. Really hope this couple finds an excellent and relentless attorney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZRMatt Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 Without quoting anyone in particular, what makes you think thy pointed the gun at them over a cell phone? Two people bailed from the car and I am guessing that there was at least 1 gun in the car. Also, did anyone ever see the broken cell phone? "Law abiding citizens" lie about the police all of the time. To be honest, the one taping should be charged with tampering with evidence. Just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idodishez Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 Tampering w evidence? U mean by not letting the cops destroy the card to cover up their actions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSparky Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 in my generalized, one-sided opinion...cops are power-hungry bastards. at least the bad ones. i could put plenty of adjectives on that, but power-hungry pretty much sums it up. i think if the technology was readily available, every cop should have to wear a video camera. the police freaking needs policed. pathetic./end rant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Wheeler Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 A badge makes a crook "legal". If you wear a badge you have a right to break the law.There bare no "GOOD" cops, only crooks that havent been caught on camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fast5gp Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 The story is one sided, it didn't say if the cops were right in firing into the car, but the cops did empty their magazines into the car though. On the other hand the cops have no right to destroy the phones. It was in a public place and they have the right to film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idodishez Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 The story is one sided, it didn't say if the cops were right in firing into the car, but the cops did empty their magazines into the car though. On the other hand the cops have no right to destroy the phones. It was in a public place and they have the right to film.And the teen couple have a right not to have a gun pointed at their head just because popo didn't get his way. I'm no cop, but pretty sure their are strict rules as to when you are allowed to draw. This trigger happy power hungry popo w an inferiority complex (ok, last part was a blanket statement, not specific to this cop) is a disaster waiting to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWing'R Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 Am I the only one that thinks it was crazy to be hanging around filming in the first place? Fricken shots where being fired 20yards away, don't know about the rest of you but my ass would have been outta there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZRMatt Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 in my generalized, one-sided opinion...cops are power-hungry bastards. at least the bad ones. i could put plenty of adjectives on that, but power-hungry pretty much sums it up. i think if the technology was readily available, every cop should have to wear a video camera. the police freaking needs policed. pathetic./end rantThat is in the works. There is a badge camera that has been tested in some departments over the last couple of years. With the exception of my language from time to time, I say bring them on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZRMatt Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 @ racist cop:what makes you think there was a gun in the car?Not even a bad/dirty cop is dumb enough to be involved in a bad shoot in the middle of a busy street. I'll admit, there are bad and dirty cops out there. That being said, the vast majority of officers are good people and the last thing they want to expose themselves or their families to is a shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-bus Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 I have absolutely no opinion on the shooting. I wasn't there and I don't know the circumstances. However, going after someone filming is a blatant violation of everything America stands for. THAT was tampering with evidence, illegal search and seizure, violation of due process, and a violation of the first amendment's protection of free speech. Free speech, you ask? This is akin to confiscating a printing press.... or shutting down a radio station. What if the cop removed and destroyed the dash-cam video? No different. Cops are good. They do a hard job and are in danger's way every day. This cop is bad. But what scares me is the current trend. This is now the third or fourth national case where the law is trying to criminalize the filming of police. Can you imagine? If the ACLU needs my help chasing a cause, here it is. Let us not forget that the bill of rights are the People's protection from government ..... not from anti-hunters, not from school bullies, not from crazy zealots...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZRMatt Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 I have absolutely no opinion on the shooting. I wasn't there and I don't know the circumstances. However, going after someone filming is a blatant violation of everything America stands for. THAT was tampering with evidence, illegal search and seizure, violation of due process, and a violation of the first amendment's protection of free speech. Free speech, you ask? This is akin to confiscating a printing press.... or shutting down a radio station. What if the cop removed and destroyed the dash-cam video? No different. Cops are good. They do a hard job and are in danger's way every day. This cop is bad. But what scares me is the current trend. This is now the third or fourth national case where the law is trying to criminalize the filming of police. Can you imagine? If the ACLU needs my help chasing a cause, here it is. Let us not forget that the bill of rights are the People's protection from government ..... not from anti-hunters, not from school bullies, not from crazy zealots......Your second sentence says it all, you weren't there. No one has any idea why he was going after the guy with the phone. Everyone wants to assume that the officer was chasing them to destroy evidence of a crime. I say BULLSHIT! If someone is standing there shooting video of a potential "crime" (whether it is on the part of the driver or officer) that video is EVIDENCE. You can be damn sure that the EVIDENCE is going to be collected.I read posts weekly about cops writing tickets or violating people's 4th amendment rights, and that the "victims" are considered guilty until proven innocent by the system. However, it is funny that in this thread the officer is the one that is guilty before anyone has all of the facts. Everyone is assuming that the officer was doing something wrong, because everyone wants to believe that the officer was doing something wrong! Also, the original video was posted on a MSN's web site, yet no one interviewed the "victim" and gave him a chance to produce the "smashed" cell phone (even that doesn't prove anything, I have 1/2 a dozen broken cell phones around my house) (the kids play with them all of the time). My bet is it never happened and he tucked the phone in his pocket. It makes for a better story when it looks like the cops were trying to cover up a bad shoot by destroying evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-bus Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 Your second sentence says it all, you weren't there. No one has any idea why he was going after the guy with the phone. Everyone wants to assume that the officer was chasing them to destroy evidence of a crime. I say BULLSHIT! If someone is standing there shooting video of a potential "crime" (whether it is on the part of the driver or officer) that video is EVIDENCE. You can be damn sure that the EVIDENCE is going to be collected.I read posts weekly about cops writing tickets or violating people's 4th amendment rights, and that the "victims" are considered guilty until proven innocent by the system. However, it is funny that in this thread the officer is the one that is guilty before anyone has all of the facts. Everyone is assuming that the officer was doing something wrong, because everyone wants to believe that the officer was doing something wrong! Also, the original video was posted on a MSN's web site, yet no one interviewed the "victim" and gave him a chance to produce the "smashed" cell phone (even that doesn't prove anything, I have 1/2 a dozen broken cell phones around my house) (the kids play with them all of the time). My bet is it never happened and he tucked the phone in his pocket. It makes for a better story when it looks like the cops were trying to cover up a bad shoot by destroying evidence.Valid points. Would the collection of evidence via a non-implicated bystander's personal property require a warrant? I don't know that answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZRMatt Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 Valid points. Would the collection of evidence via a non-implicated bystander's personal property require a warrant? I don't know that answer.Yes and no. It could go either way. Someone mentioned it earlier (in this thread I beleive, but I read a lot of threads tonight on guard duty), but the possible destruction of evidence COULD be grounds for a warrantless seizure. However, once the person who is in possession of the evidence is detained, a warrant would probably be sought and issued. It is nearly impossible however, to gather the evidence if the unknown person in possession of it disappears into the chaos of a shooting scene. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWing'R Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 I say BULLSHIT! If someone is standing there shooting video of a potential "crime" (whether it is on the part of the driver or officer) that video is EVIDENCE. You can be damn sure that the EVIDENCE is going to be collected.... But, the evidence wasn't "collected", it was destroyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZRMatt Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 But' date=' the evidence wasn't "collected", it was destroyed.[/quote']He says that it was destroyed, but until I see that proof, I don't buy it. Anyone can say their property was taken from them and destroyed, and they can say that they smuggled their memory card out in their mouth. The sensationalism of those statements coupled with the culture of mistrust of the police makes for a story and video with the potential to go viral. However, like I said before, they could have very easily produced the phone to back up the story, but they didn't. And even if they did produce a broken phone, it doesn't mean that was the one they used that night. Again, I just don't buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMS Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 Some people need to die. Wonder what he did? Need more info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.