Quote :

"Our constitution and current judicial system disagrees with your statement. That is why we are not required to tell a police officer such things. Its about preventing abuse of such powers. Again, refer to my last post and go get an education. Remember, there would be no general welfare of the greater good or whatever communist bullshit you said if it were not for our basic civil liberties and freedoms granted to us under the constitution. You lose - any way you look at it you lose. I have the constitution backing me, which comes with centuries of debates, court cases, trials, you name it - it is still there for a reason. "

Actually, you're wrong. And you're acting like a douche. All a cop needs to pull someone over and start questioning them is probable cause. Probable cause can come in a lot of forms. In this case, the officer stated that there had been thefts occuring in the commuter lot the kid pulled into. The kid had a police scanner, which according to the cop can be used as a robbery tool. And the guy was being deliberately evasive in his answers, which combined with the time of night and odd destination, could be interpreted as suspicious behavior.

And honestly, at what point were this kid's 4th amendment rights infringed upon? They didn't search him or his car. The cop did throw a temper tantrum and make hollow threats, and we can all agree that he was an asshole. But this whole bullshit about the constitution and civil rights has no merit. According to the cop, he fit a criminal profile and he was detained and questioned because of that. They also shone a flashlight into his car. Neither of those steps were illegal.

Pick a situation where someone's rights were actually violated before you go spouting off about the constitution and centuries of court cases.

9/20/2007 1:26:20 AM

Quote :

"refer to my last post and go get an education"

Got one. And got it way quicker than you did, apparently.

Quote :

" I bet you voted for George Bush."

Nope. I despise George Bush.

Quote :

"You lose - any way you look at it you lose. I have the constitution backing me, which comes with centuries of debates, court cases, trials, you name it - it is still there for a reason."

I bet you smoke weed and try to hide behind laws whose true meaning was not in the spirit of hiding criminal activity. There - see, I can also judge a book by it's cover based only on weak conjecture!

Anyway, I'm finished with you. Come back when YOU'VE got an education (5th year college doesn't count). And bear in mind, I did say the cop in the video was insane.

9/20/2007 5:21:47 PM

you moron, 5th year college because ive worked 2 7 month COOP rotations
and more than a year part time COOP

so actually, i bet i will get it quicker than you did?

9/21/2007 4:56:39 PM

^^you idiot
4th amendment was an example

and probable cause does not waive someones right to silence or waive their right to not cooperate (legally)

9/21/2007 4:58:27 PM

http://tinyurl.com/yp6lub

na na na na
na na na na

hey hey hey

goodbye.

9/21/2007 9:27:09 PM

awesome

9/21/2007 9:56:26 PM

I like the part in the video where he threatened to ruin the kids life forever and told the kid that he didn't know shit about the law.

Quote :

"Pick a situation where someone's rights were actually violated before you go spouting off about the constitution and centuries of court cases."

He didn't search him because he had probable cause, dumbass. ACCORDING TO THE COP'S OWN STATEMENTS, he searched him because he wanted to teach the kid a lesson about respecting his authoritay. That's the fucking definition of a violation of civil rights.

The firing proves just how wrong this cop was about the law, and you have an even poorer grasp on the law than the idiot who just got canned.

[Edited on September 22, 2007 at 12:45 AM. Reason : The real smoking gun that shows the cop was breaking the law is that he turned off his own camera.]

9/22/2007 12:26:13 AM

Moral of the story:

http://www.flexyourrights.org/definition_of_probable_cause

Quote :

"Definition of Probable Cause Many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation. Understanding the what, when, why, and how of police conduct during a stop is confusing for most people. Varying standards of proof exist to justify varying levels of police authority during citizen contacts. While FyR maintains that it is never a good idea to consent to a search or answer incriminating questions, an understanding of these standards will help the citizen understand when police can surpass constitutional protections. Reasonable suspicion Facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to suspect that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed At this stage, police may detain the suspect for a brief period and perform a frisk. In some cases, drug-sniffing dogs may be called to the scene, although officers must cite a reason for suspecting the presence of drug evidence in particular. Refusing a search does not create reasonable suspicion, although acting nervous and answering questions inconsistently can. For this reason, it is best not to answer questions if you have to lie in order to do so. Police authority increases if they catch you in a lie, but not if you refuse to answer questions. As a general rule, reasonable suspicion applies to situation in which police have reason to believe you’re up to something, but they don’t know what it is. Probable cause Facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed and the person arrested is responsible At this stage, police may perform a search, and often an arrest. Probable cause generally means police know what crime they suspect you of and have discovered evidence to support that belief. Common examples include seeing or smelling evidence which is in plain view, or receiving an admission of guilt for a specific crime. For the conscientious citizen, the best advice regarding police authority is to stick to your guns and not waive your constitutional rights under any circumstances. Police officers will often give misleading descriptions of what their authority is, but you have nothing to gain by submitting to coercive police tactics. Police must make ad hoc decisions in the streets regarding their authority level in a given situation and these decisions are subject to review in court. Asserting your rights properly is good way to avoid arrest, but it is an even better way to avoid a conviction. --- 5. Isn’t refusing to let the police search me an admission of guilt? No. If a police officer asks your permission to search, you are under no obligation to consent. The main reason why officers ask is because they don’t have enough evidence to search without your consent. If you consent to a search request you give up one of the most important constitutional rights you have -- your Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. "

From another thread:

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

[Edited on September 22, 2007 at 1:42 AM. Reason : df]

9/22/2007 1:15:33 AM

^ , ^^ gg.

[/thread]

9/22/2007 4:08:34 AM

The cop was fired for his "language" and for, hilariously enough, neglecting to tape the encounter with his own camera.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/21/madcop.video.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

9/25/2007 12:54:03 AM

Quote :

"He didn't search him because he had probable cause, dumbass. ACCORDING TO THE COP'S OWN STATEMENTS, he searched him because he wanted to teach the kid a lesson about respecting his authoritay. That's the fucking definition of a violation of civil rights. "

He didn't search him at all, dumbass. And I don't know where you are getting that shit about the cop's own statements. He said right from the start that the vehicle was suspicious and that there have been car thieves in the area.

This is about midway through the ordeal:

Quote :

"Officer #1: It's called... When you go home and you want to tell everybody, first thing you tell em, you were pulled over because you were a suspicious vehicle. In the State of Missouri, we have the right to stop anybody walking for a pat check, or stop a suspicious vehicle anytime. Okay? That was my probable cause. And this parking lot, as a matter of fact, what's this parking lot called? Officer #1: What did you just call it? Brett: It's a parking lot. Officer #1: What kind? Brett: A commuter parking lot Officer #1: Are you commuting somewhere? Are you commuting somewhere? Brett: How would you know that? Officer #1: Are you commuting somewhere? Brett: How would you know that? Officer #1: That's why I was coming to inquire about that, but you just told me you were going to sit here. Brett: You don't know if I was going to wait here for somebody to come pick me up. Officer #1: I asked you that, did I not. Brett: I don't have to say anything. I have the 5th Amendment right. Officer #1: Do you really? Brett: Do you know what the 5th Amendment right is? "

The guy deserved to be fired for screaming and threatening the kid. We can all agree on that. But I hope we can also agree that the kid is a douche.

Once again, asking questions, briefly detaining and yelling at someone and shining a flashlight in their car is not a constitutional, civil rights issue like you all are making it out to be. It's simply a case of an angry cop verbally assaulting and threatening some stupid kid.



[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 2:53 AM. Reason : 2]

9/25/2007 2:44:49 AM

no, it is a constitutional issue, because he is a Law Enforcement Officer.

the guy was being detained unlawfully and against his will during the entire 12-minute encounter.

its not like he was at work, and his boss was cussing and spitting in his face, making all kinds of threats -- and could have turned around and walked away.

you know for a damn fact that guy wasnt able to walk away from the cop, even thought the cop was WAY out of bounds.

9/25/2007 2:57:25 AM

It's a good thing this is all on video tape, so people who insist on being idiots ^^ can be called out.

Quote :

"He didn't search him at all, dumbass."

Quote :

"Officer #1: I think I want to take you to jail just to prove you wrong. Do you have any weapons or anything on you I need to know about? How's that for probable cause? Brett: No. Officer #1: If you would, turn around and place your hands on the car real quick. I'm gonna pat you down. Look at that, a search. [releases guy] "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html
Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [p3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.

So after 15 minutes of chatting with this guy outside of his car, the cop suddenly started to fear for his safety then immediately let the guy go? Yeah right. It wasn't for protection, it was to be a dick.

-------------

Quote :

"you were pulled over because you were a suspicious vehicle. In the State of Missouri, we have the right to stop anybody walking for a pat check, or stop a suspicious vehicle anytime. Okay? That was my probable cause. "

The cop's statements are absolutely meaningless. Just because this idiot said he had probable cause doesn't mean he has probable cause. Cops lie about their authority to get you to consent to a search, which is exactly what happened here.

Lie 1: The cop was wrong about calling it "probable cause." See above:
"Probable cause generally means police know what crime they suspect you of and have discovered evidence to support that belief."

Lie 2: That he had reasonable suspicion to stop the car in the first place --

Quote :

"Once again, asking questions, briefly detaining and yelling at someone and shining a flashlight in their car is not a constitutional, civil rights issue like you all are making it out to be"

Since you still can't grasp what reasonable suspicion is, let's see what the fucking Supreme Court has to say on the issue:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1036.ZS.html
While “reasonable suspicion” is a less demanding standard than probable cause, there must be at least a minimal level of objective justification for the stop. An individual’s presence in a “high crime area,” standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion of criminal activity, but a location’s characteristics are relevant in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation, Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 144, 147—148. In this case, moreover, it was also Wardlow’s unprovoked flight that aroused the officers’ suspicion.

Since I'm sure you can't understand that: If someone is in a high crime area AND they run, that gives reasonable suspicion to justify a stop. If someone is just in a high crime area, that does not give reasonable suspicion to justify a stop.

What did the guy in this video do other than driving through an area that allegedly had a lot of car thefts -- not use his blinker ?

It bears repeating:
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity[Prawn Star's case].



[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 4:06 AM. Reason : Someone should tell the SCOTUS that these issues aren't constitutional, ASAP ]

9/25/2007 3:53:11 AM

^ gg, dude

9/25/2007 5:16:00 AM

^^ where to begin...

Quote :

"It's a good thing this is all on video tape, so people who insist on being idiots ^^ can be called out."

Nice, with the name calling already. Good start.

Quote :

"So after 15 minutes of chatting with this guy outside of his car, the cop suddenly started to fear for his safety then immediately let the guy go? Yeah right. It wasn't for protection, it was to be a dick."

A pat-down for weapons is pretty standard procedure when someone is being detained. The cop has the right to pat down this kid for weapons. In fact, he is encouraged to do so from his police training. Keep in mind, the kid was detained at this point in the encounter, not just stopped. He was detained for being evasive during questioning and not producing his drivers license when asked. By law, you must produce a drivers license during a vehicular stop when a cop asks you to.

-------------

Quote :

"The cop's statements are absolutely meaningless. Just because this idiot said he had probable cause doesn't mean he has probable cause. Cops lie about their authority to get you to consent to a search, which is exactly what happened here."

Probable cause is a gray area in law enforcement. The cop was squarely in this gray area, questioning the kid because he was a "suspicious vehicle" and then detaining him because the kid was being evasive rather than cooperative.

Once again, WHAT SEARCH ARE YOU ALLUDING TO? A light pat-down for weapons does not constitute a breach of 4th amendment civil rights that you keep chirping on about.

Quote :

"Lie 1: The cop was wrong about calling it "probable cause." See above: "Probable cause generally means police know what crime they suspect you of and have discovered evidence to support that belief.""

Read up some more on probable cause. You can't summarize it in 1 sentence. Like I said, there is a substantial gray area. Profiling (which the cop was doing) is part of this gray area. I would imagine that he was probably profiling based on the time of night, the age of the driver and the location the driver was in.

Quote :

"Lie 2: That he had reasonable suspicion to stop the car in the first place -- Since you still can't grasp what reasonable suspicion is, let's see what the fucking Supreme Court has to say on the issue: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1036.ZS.html "While “reasonable suspicion” is a less demanding standard than probable cause, there must be at least a minimal level of objective justification for the stop. An individual’s presence in a “high crime area,” standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion of criminal activity, but a location’s characteristics are relevant in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation, Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 144, 147—148. In this case, moreover, it was also Wardlow’s unprovoked flight that aroused the officers’ suspicion." Since I'm sure you can't understand that: If someone is in a high crime area AND they run, that gives reasonable suspicion to justify a stop. If someone is just in a high crime area, that does not give reasonable suspicion to justify a stop. What did the guy in this video do other than driving through an area that allegedly had a lot of car thefts -- not use his blinker ?"

Hey, what's this? It's the Missouri profiling policy online:
http://www.aele.org/mopol.html

Quote :

"B. Stops ... 2. Factors to consider in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists for a stop. a. Appearance - Does the person generally fit the description of a person wanted for a known offense? Do they appear to be suffering from a recent injury or to be under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants? b. Actions - Is the person running away from an actual or possible crime scene? Are they behaving in a manner indicating possible criminal conduct? If so, in what way? Were incriminating statements or conversations overheard? c. Demeanor - Is the person responsive to questions during the contact; were their answers evasive, suspicious, or incriminating? Were they excessively nervous during the contact? d. Officer's Prior Knowledge - Does the person have a prior arrest or conviction record, or are they known to have committed a serious offense? If so, is it for offenses similar to one that has just occurred, or which you suspect is about to occur? e. Area - Is the person near the location of a known offense soon after its commission? Is the person in an area known for an unusually high incidence of a particular criminal activity? If so, is it the kind of activity the person is thought to have committed, be committing, or is about to commit?. If reference is made to the area of the stop, officers should be able to articulate specific facts concerning that area (i.e., four commercial burglaries during the past week and within several blocks of the stop). f. Time of Day - Is it usual for people to be in the area at this particular time? Is it the time of day or night during which criminal activity of the kind suspected usually occurs? g. Prior Police Training and Experience - Does the person's conduct resemble the pattern or modus operandi used in particular criminal offenses? Does the investigating officer have experience in dealing with the particular kind of criminal activity being investigated? h. Police Purpose - Was the officer investigating a specific crime or specific type of criminal activity? How serious is the suspected criminal activity? Might innocent people be endangered if investigative action is not taken at once? i. Source of Information - If the basis of the officer's reasonable suspicions is, in whole or in part, information supplied by another person, what kind of person was involved? Were they a criminal informant, a witness, or a victim of a crime? How reliable does the person appear to be? Have they supplied information in the past that proved to be reliable? Are they known to the officer? Did the officer obtain the information directly from that person? How did the person obtain the information? Was any part of the information corroborated prior to making the stop? "

It looks like this dick cop had at least a few of these factors in mind when he made the stop.

Quote :

" It bears repeating: Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity[Prawn Star's case]."

Wrong, I just know the law a little better than you do, and I'm less biased against cops.

9/26/2007 1:09:18 AM

nothing you've posted there addresses the concern that, upon being pulled over, a person can ask a cop "what seems to be the problem?", or "have i done anything wrong?"

no one is saying that the cop didnt have the authority to stop him and ask him questions.

what you fail to address, however, is that the guy has the constitutional right to not answer any questions beyond his name and birthdate, and (since he was driving) to produce a valid license/registration/insurance

no one -- not this guy, or me, or you, or your grandmother -- should have to be subjected to an unhinged, screaming, spittle-spraying out-of-control cop making threats against their physical safety for merely exercising this constitutional right.

9/26/2007 1:25:18 AM

Quote :

"nothing you've posted there addresses the concern that, upon being pulled over, a person can ask a cop "what seems to be the problem?", or "have i done anything wrong?""

My whole point is that beyond the threats and verbal abuse, nothing the cop did was illegal or unconstitutional. Beyond the verbal abuse, the kid's civil rights were not violated when he was stopped and later detained.

Quote :

"no one is saying that the cop didnt have the authority to stop him and ask him questions."

Actually, several people in this thread are saying exactly that. Most recently skokiaan.

Quote :

"what you fail to address, however, is that the guy has the constitutional right to not answer any questions beyond his name and birthdate, and (since he was driving) to produce a valid license/registration/insurance"

I'll address it right now: The guy has the constitutional right to not answer any questions beyond his name, birthdate, and driver's license. However, this course of action combined with other suspicious behavior may be construed as evasive and could give a cop probable cause to detain someone in certain situations. The kid did not show his drivers license when asked, instead questioning the cop's authority. This could be construed as evasive behavior, which can be a factor in probable cause cases.

Quote :

"no one -- not this guy, or me, or you, or your grandmother -- should have to be subjected to an unhinged, screaming, spittle-spraying out-of-control cop making threats against their physical safety for merely exercising this constitutional right."

I agree 100%. And I have stated as much several times throughout the thread. My point is that the reason the cop got fired was the verbal abuse, not a violation of the 4th amendment, unwarranted stop and search, or any of the other bullshit that skokiaan and pmcassel have been harping on about.

[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 2:10 AM. Reason : 2]

9/26/2007 2:09:11 AM

IANAL.... so i'm not going to try and argue the finer points. but there definitely is a constitutional issue here, it's called the Fourth Amendment.

now i think whether or not his constitutional rights were violated is in a definite gray area, though, and i'll bet the city will offer him a sizable settlement rather than have to face a civil rights lawsuit and uncomfortable constitutional issues.

so i just dont see how you can act so definitive about it.







i mean, other than the fact that this is TWW.






[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 2:18 AM. Reason : ]

9/26/2007 2:17:16 AM

Quote :

" but there definitely is a constitutional issue here, it's called the Fourth Amendment."

If the cop had found any drugs or weapons, they might not have been admissible in court depending on the judge or justices ruling. That is the only place where I could see the fourth amendment coming into play in this situation.

If this kid tries to sue the police department based on a single alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment that produced no incriminating evidence, he'll get laughed out of court.

Quote :

"now i think whether or not his constitutional rights were violated is in a definite gray area, though, and i'll bet the city will offer him a sizable settlement rather than have to face a civil rights lawsuit and uncomfortable constitutional issues."

Agreed, although I think the settlement will be more about the threats and verbal abuse.

Quote :

"so i just dont see how you can act so definitive about it. "

I stated before that profiling is a gray area. Many judges would say that he didn't have probable cause to make that stop or detain the kid, and any evidence found in the process is inadmissable. On the other hand, many judges would say the opposite.

This statement (and viewpoint) here is what I object to:

Quote :

"The firing proves just how wrong this cop was about the law, and you have an even poorer grasp on the law than the idiot who just got canned."

The firing proves that cops aren't allowed to threaten and verbally abuse people the way this guy did. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 2:42 AM. Reason : 2]

9/26/2007 2:38:28 AM

Quote :

"If this kid tries to sue the police department based on a single alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment that produced no incriminating evidence, he'll get laughed out of court."

the illegal acquisition of evidence by violating someones 4th amendment right is not a prerequisite for wining a civil rights lawsuit - they don't have to find something incriminating during their illegal search for him to win a lawsuit that says they violated his 4th amendment rights

9/26/2007 11:05:49 AM

as soon as i read the title i thought of

Quote :

"dont tase me, bro"

9/26/2007 4:46:18 PM

Quote :

"I'll address it right now: The guy has the constitutional right to not answer any questions beyond his name, birthdate, and driver's license. However, this course of action combined with other suspicious behavior may be construed as evasive and could give a cop probable cause to detain someone in certain situations. The kid did not show his drivers license when asked, instead questioning the cop's authority. This could be construed as evasive behavior, which can be a factor in probable cause cases."

simply exercising your civil rights is not enough for probable cause
if i refuse a search of my car, it doesn't mean the officer can automatically detain me for that reason alone

you are doing pretty bad here prawn star

9/26/2007 6:22:33 PM

[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 8:10 PM. Reason : 2]

9/26/2007 8:05:45 PM

^^ You are doing pretty bad at reading comprehension.

I never said that simply exercising your civil rights is enough for probable cause.

I said that uncooperative and evasive behavior during questioning can be used as a factor in determining probable cause, which is true. Just read the link I posted regarding Missouri's profiling guidelines.

9/27/2007 1:20:13 AM

i like that you guys are sitting safely at your computers, with all the google-machine research possible, and days to mull over the possibilities and are still having issues deciding on the level of proof (mere suspicion, reasonable suspicion, probable cause....)



now, since there is a severe shortage of LEO's ... go swear in, pin on a badge, and do all of the above in a few seconds in the field while wearing body armor so you can hopefully continue living


God forbid you have to decide on life v. death... yours or someone else.


the cop got canned / end

9/27/2007 11:05:58 AM

What are some DIY solutions to in-car recording to ensure my own safety?

9/27/2007 11:19:53 AM

What's the word on what the cops did to the kid down at U of F? That shit was fucked up.

I watched that video and got sick to my stomach. I don't care how disruptive the kid was being. He was excercising his right to free speech and the police went way overboard.

They should have warned him (tapping him on the arm doesn't cut it) he has two minutes left and then you're going to escort him away from the mic. Take him to the back of the auditorium and tell him he'll have to wait in line for another turn to speak. If he disagrees tell him to leave. If he tries to cut the line for the mic, then you restrain him.

[Edited on September 27, 2007 at 12:21 PM. Reason : ?]

9/27/2007 12:20:56 PM

Quote :

"God forbid you have to decide on life v. death... yours or someone else."

this is not one of those situations

9/27/2007 12:49:00 PM

Quote :

"When Darrow walked outside to his 1997 Nissan Maxima, he noticed two officers sitting in a marked squad car, numbered 65. There is little question as to why the officers were there. "As I got into the car, he started to pull up the street and he and his partner just stared me down," Darrow explained. The patrol car drove away as Darrow started his car and followed. Because his camera had been set to capture night-time footage, the first 45 seconds of the video is obscured. It does, however, capture the police car making questionable turning maneuvers in order to get away. Members of the police community are on the record regarding their desire to stake out Darrow's home and harass the twenty-year-old. In late June, users of St. Louis CopTalk, an unofficial forum for Saint Louis area law enforcement, posted Darrow's home address along with messages containing apparent death threats in retaliation for the young motorist's taping of a DUI roadblock in November and a traffic ticket in June. One CopTalk user repeating the address wrote, "Every copper, City and County, should etch this little punks [sic] name in their [sic] memory. Brett Darrow, [address deleted], city of St. Louis.""

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1988.asp

9/27/2007 12:55:05 PM

Good to know that this was just an isolated incident involving only one cop.

9/27/2007 1:04:17 PM

You would think the cops would want to avoid him after all this, but nooooo.

9/27/2007 1:09:47 PM

I can understand the cops resentment of Darrow. The guy is clearly baiting them with the intention of getting a lawsuit or getting them fired.

This "CopTalk" forum sounds like TWW for police. I wouldn't put too much stake in anything taken off of that site.

9/27/2007 1:11:50 PM

I wouldn't either, but I cannot understand the resentment they have towards Darrow. I'm looking at him as more of a LEO watchdog group than anything. If the LEO's just follow the law, what do they have to worry about? Its perfectly legal to cop watch.

And there is nothing that says he is intentionally looking for a law suite. It could have very well been that he had 1 bad incident and is out to reveal the truth as to how some LEO's act.

9/27/2007 4:18:42 PM

From STLtoday.com

Quote :

"Darrow said he hasn't been interviewed by any prosecutors. "I'm kind of surprised," he said. "I'm the victim here, and you'd think they'd start with the victim." Darrow said he was considering going to law school — and has talked to a few lawyers about the possibility of a suit."

He has already sued a police department before and won, when he says he was assaulted by an off-duty officer. He is clearly targeting these guys.

Quote :

"If the LEO's just follow the law, what do they have to worry about?"

This sound an awful lot like the "If they have nothing to hide, they have no reason not to cooperate" statement on page 2 which set you off into a name-calling tirade

9/27/2007 4:48:48 PM

Quote :

"this is not one of those situations"

you missed the point...

each contact is unknown - the LEO doesn't know the outcome, and has to make the determination of what level of proof he/she has. Here you guys argue your opinions for days in absolute safety. Consider these decisions as they are made in the real world, and perhaps you will get a different perspective.

9/27/2007 5:50:07 PM

Quote :

" This sound an awful lot like the "If they have nothing to hide, they have no reason not to cooperate" statement on page 2 which set you off into a name-calling tirade "

I knew you were going to say that.
LEO is a branch of the government enforcing laws not a citizen - it is perfectly fine for the citizens to watch them. There are no civil rights protecting LEO (don't confuse that with individuals who are LEOs). Otherwise, a police office could say they have the right to privacy and refuse internal investigations, etc.

Seriously, don't be a moron.

9/28/2007 12:28:59 AM

^^There are plenty of officers who would have not made the decision to exercise excessive authority because they were pissed off. This was not an issue of split second decision making. It was an issue of overuse of authority. Plain and simple.

I'm not sure what you guys would actually consider as a LEO overstepping their bounds? Rodney King?

9/28/2007 12:31:04 AM

^ nowhere in this thread have i tried to defend this individual officer

my point was to expand [your] thinking to include what it is like to actually have to make these decisions in real life as it happens, w/o the benefit of complete personal safety, time, and of course perfect hindsight... as was happening above regarding the level of suspicion/proof necessary to conduct different levels of stops.

9/28/2007 1:31:52 PM

I can't see any legitimate reason a cop should have a problem being videotaped doing his job. Law enforcement uses surveillance to get information and document violations, no reason citizens (WHO PAY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT) cannot do the same thing.

Cops carry a tremendous amount of responsibility. I give them 100% credit for that. Having that said they know the responsibilities of the job and should not be in that line of work if they can't handle it.

Teachers have to deal with rotten kids without hitting them.

Bus Drivers have to deal with loud kids and not wreck.

Pilots have to be responsible for hundreds of lives each time they take off.

Garbage collectors have to come home smelling like ass after being exposed stench and bacteria all day.

Any job where you work with or for the general public has pitfalls, if you can't do the job right find a different one. A badge gives you no right to threaten someone who is not breaking the law.

9/28/2007 2:21:58 PM

Quote :

"He has already sued a police department before and won, when he says he was assaulted by an off-duty officer. He is clearly targeting these guys."

Yea, because he is definitely following officers around BAITING THEM into confrontation. Oh, wait, it's the other way around. His lawsuit was absolutely warranted and having the recording was the only thing that made the difference between him being in jail, or outing a lying law officer.

9/28/2007 2:37:50 PM

^^ i've never said it (LEO) was the hardest, or most dangerous job out there (by a long stretch)

it is, however, unique -> of the jobs you listed, how many of those professions require you to wear body armor?

little brother can absolutely watch big brother (within legal limitations), but i'm willing to bet that most times little brother only helps to convict himself

9/28/2007 2:44:10 PM

Quote :

"Yea, because he is definitely following officers around BAITING THEM into confrontation."

I know this was sarcasm, but that is really not a stretch. It's very possible that he pulled into that commuter lot because he saw a cop in front of it and wanted to mess with him. And his method of refusing the officer's questions was definitely to bait him, even if it is legal. Are you gonna try to say that this kid was blabbering on about the 5th amendment because of the principle of the matter? From my end, it looked like he wanted a confrontation, or he wanted to upstage the officer with his knowledge of his constitutional rights.

^^^All of the above is true. You have a right to record interactions with police officers, and those recordings can serve as a safeguard against abuse.

To look at it from a cop's perspective, one of their long-term colleagues got fired and publicly humiliated because of the actions of a kid who's actively trying to make these guys look bad and sued a cop last year. Of course they are gonna resent him, regardless of the culpability of the officer. It's just human nature to side with your colleagues when they are under fire.

Quote :

"but I cannot understand the resentment they have towards Darrow."

Don't be a moron.


[Edited on September 28, 2007 at 3:04 PM. Reason : 2]

9/28/2007 2:55:57 PM

Quote :

"^^All of the above is true. You have a right to record interactions with police officers, and those recordings can serve as a safeguard against abuse. "

depends on each state's laws, careful.

9/28/2007 3:05:12 PM

Yeah, I know that in certain states you have to have consent from both parties in order to record a conversation.

How does that work with police cameras? Are they exempt from those state laws?

9/28/2007 3:47:30 PM

the cop was wrong

9/28/2007 4:47:10 PM

Quote :

"the cop was wrong "

yeah thx, i think thats been established


states that require both parties consent have an exception when the recording (audio) is done for law enforcement purposes (ie; body bug). Generally pix aren't the issue, its the voice recording (as long as the pix are taken from a legal vantage point - "right to be, right to see" rule)

9/28/2007 6:16:10 PM

the cop was wrong

9/28/2007 8:04:44 PM