Oh my god Dharma your beinging to be such a fucker on here.

I give what I get. Vile was being a dick.
It doesn't necessarily make me a "fucker" to point that fact out.

:thumbs:
DB

I give what I get. Vile was being a dick.
It doesn't necessarily make me a "fucker" to point that fact out.

:thumbs:
DB
no..it's not that. you always are.:lolhit:

I would have to admit that any weapon, even a fist, can be potentially lethal.Fair enough.

That is what I believe. Note that the first two officers who grabbed his arms were trying to walk him towards the exit rather than put on the handcuffs.Actually, I went back and studied that clip some more. Look at the woman on his right. She appears to be clearly trying to move that arm immediately behind his back. This was no simple escort to the exit. It was two cops, one on each side, moving to immediately restrain the guy, and for what? Being a jerk? Is that inciting a riot in Florida? Or could it really have been that he'd touched on some damn uncomfortable topics for the state? I tend to not ride the conspiracy horse, but this is interesting. She was going for a behind-the-back arm hold.

I wasn't attempting to be objective, merely to post an opinion by someone who was present at the event. Someone else had posted an op-ed column by someone who wasn't there, and I thought perhaps a dissenting opinion was in order. I'm not sure if you're attempting to point out something I didn't know or consider, but I did read the thing before I posted it. :)Fair enough, but I read your post as representing this as simply an eye witness, not a long time friend of the cop who started this mess this way.

I give what I get. Vile was being a dick.
It doesn't necessarily make me a "fucker" to point that fact out.

:thumbs:
DB

you act like i ment that as an insult....relax dude... embrace your inner fucker...

You fuck with the bull and you get the horns sometimes....This applies to cops as well, I presume.

This applies to cops as well, I presume.

absolutly... Hey i am 100% equal oppertunity when it comes to that. We both know houston Police,lets not even pretend.. hell we fucked up crime labs before....... You know there is no way all police every where are innocent.

Originally Posted by Vilepagan
The Taser when used in the way it was used in this case is not regarded as "potentially lethal", nor does it induce "50,000 volts" into the target.

Perhaps you should meet with the family of the wheelchair bound woman who was tasered to death by police. While usually not lethal tasers can kill.

Perhaps you should meet with the family of the wheelchair bound woman who was tasered to death by police.

She was Tased multiple times, and had a pre-existing health condition.


While usually not lethal tasers can kill.

True, but so can a fist. You posted recently about an incident where you said you "beat the crap" out of a guy who was tailgating your wife and when you asked him to stop he "flipped you off". Would you think it was accurate to say you used "potentially lethal force" on this guy, or would that be overstating the case a bit?

She was Tased multiple times, and had a pre-existing health condition.

Does that make it O.K. in your book?

The cops didn't know she had a pre-existing health condition, therefore they didn't do anything wrong?

Does that make it O.K. in your book?
In all fairness to Vile, that's not what he was saying.

In all fairness to Vile, that's not what he was saying.

Thats why I am asking. I am not sure what he was trying say.

I am not sure what he was trying say.
I think his take on police brutality has been relatively clear up to this point - he's discussed the FSU incident at length, and contrary to what you're intimating here, he's not advocating that cops tase people multiple times. I don't necessarily agree with him 100%, but I COMPLETELY understand his position. Truth be told, he's absolutely right in regards to this situation (at least, if you wanna look at it technically, he is). My problem here is that I think (I mean, I truly believe) cops abuse their power continually, and being that they're afforded the ability to wield that "power" over people's heads (and you and I both know they love to do it), their actions should be open to scrutiny. If I ran things, I'd double the size of IAD, and cut the "force" in half. I think they're all a bunch of glorified "bouncers" (no offense). IOW, they're half-witted, meter maid, cowboys with automatics. And tasers.

I mean, let's face it - they're revenue generators and paperwork filers, period. That's all these idiots do.

I think his take on police brutality has been relatively clear up to this point - he's discussed the FSU incident at length, and contrary to what you're intimating here, he's not advocating that cops tase people multiple times. I don't necessarily agree with him 100%, but I COMPLETELY understand his position. Truth be told, he's absolutely right in regards to this situation (at least, if you wanna look at it technically, he is). My problem here is that I think (I mean, I truly believe) cops abuse their power continually, and being that they're afforded the ability to wield that "power" over people's heads (and you and I both know they love to do it), their actions should be open to scrutiny. If I ran things, I'd double the size of IAD, and cut the "force" in half. I think they're all a bunch of glorified "bouncers" (no offense). IOW, they're half-witted, meter maid, cowboys with automatics. And tasers.

I mean, let's face it - they're revenue generators and paperwork filers, period. That's all these idiots do.

LOL, the biggest bully of a cop I ever knew went to work for the IAD. Talk about a power trip. Busting citizens isn't half as much fun as busting cops.

;)
SMW

Busting citizens isn't half as much fun as busting cops....busting bad cops.

...busting bad cops.
Yeah, whatever, dear. Must be nice to live in a world where everything is black & white.

;)
SMW

...busting bad cops.

Bah, some people file IA complaints every time they get a traffic citation.

Yeah, whatever, dear. Must be nice to live in a world where everything is black & white.

;)
SMW
What an odd thing for SMW to accuse someone of.

Bah, some people file IA complaints every time they get a traffic citation.In that case IA clears them. Or are you suggesting that the cops in IA are bad cops?

Yeah, whatever, dear. Must be nice to live in a world where everything is black & white.The point is, dear, that IA is not there to bust cops, per se, but rather bad cops. Recognizing this is the exact opposite of a delusional black-white view of the world.

What an odd thing for SMW to accuse someone of.The pot calling the kettle black-and-white?:cool:

Does that make it O.K. in your book?

No, and as Charles Babbage said famously "I cannot apprehend the confusion of ideas that would precipitate such a question"


The cops didn't know she had a pre-existing health condition, therefore they didn't do anything wrong?

Did not the news stories indicate the woman was in a wheelchair? I don't know about you, but when I see someone in a wheelchair, I assume they have a health problem of some kind, and frankly, I suspect that most policemen would make that assumption as well.

No, and as Charles Babbage said famously "I cannot apprehend the confusion of ideas that would precipitate such a question"



Did not the news stories indicate the woman was in a wheelchair? I don't know about you, but when I see someone in a wheelchair, I assume they have a health problem of some kind, and frankly, I suspect that most policemen would make that assumption as well.

This reminds me of a few particular bad experiences i've had in
public,the last few years.
One involved a real,true-blue pain in the ass customer {wheelchair }
who spent long periods of time {hard to calculate} at a now
defunct Video store,just hangin out and makin sure everyone heard
his BiG mouth.He was young and always in there.I only went there
about Once a month,to check out their Porn.
I never confronted him,it was too easy,and he was apparently
ENTIRELY sold on his own drivel.One can tell the type.
I stopped goin there,and they went under,but months beforehand,
every time I passed that Video Store,I'd look to see if he was
hangin at the counter,his favorite spot to vent.YUP,every time.

As I explained on Smarty's Board { OK...thread } in Spring,
I went to the Post Office,for a real quickie trip to get a stamp from
the stamp machine and mail.Usually takes about a Minute.
I was in a big hurry,and decided to use a Handicapped Parking spot.
There were 2 next to each other Open.My Car was running.
When I got out from the PO,after mailing my letter,this guy in a
Van,was starring at those leaving,and was right behind my car,blocking
my exit.As soon as he saw me enter my car,he called out REAL Loud,
" where's your Permit " and " where's your tag ".I coulda just ignored
him,but I knew I was in the wrong { Generally NEVER Park in Handicapp}
and decided to explain myself.Before I even got a chance to explain he
was in Shout Mode.I mean,REAL doggone Mad Dog Coll Shout mode.
He was actually SCREAMING at me.I thought he might burst somethin.,
He kept screaming " WHY " WHY...WHY...WHY... after every time I
tried to explain,I didn't want to park there and was only gonna be a
minute at most.He absolutely went bonkers.I went up to his Van,to see what
his handicapp was.I couldn't tell.Maybe None.Just a bum leg er somethin.
There was a Cane,in plain sight.
He was older than me,but not by much.Maybe Vietnam Vet age.
He eventually backed up real slowly,and let me out.I thought for a minute
he wasn't gonna.I spent the rest of the Morning,pondering his utter
insane attitude.I even swore,if he ever pulled that Shit again,I was
gonna yank him from that Van,and rip a limb off.I'm purdy tough.
At least was,once upon a.
The funny thing is,I did see that Van,more than once,when peering
over at the Post offiice,on my way to do Local chores.
I just Bet,he did that out of habit.Every time he went into town,he'd
scoot thru the Post Office parking lot to see just who used the
Handicap stalls.
Kinda like Here...I guess.
Not as hellbent,but Damn nears.

I only went there
about Once a month,to check out their Porn.Once a month! Damn, son, porno is supposed to make up for marital relations, not mimick them!

Once a month! Damn, son, porno is supposed to make up for marital relations, not mimick them!

ROFL. :D

No, and as Charles Babbage said famously "I cannot apprehend the confusion of ideas that would precipitate such a question"


I find the pattern of your inabiliy to comprehend simple questions quite disappointing.

:(

I find the pattern of your inabiliy to comprehend simple questions quite disappointing.

:(

What makes you think I didn't comprehend your question? I answered it after all.

It is your pattern you should be concerned with, not mine. :)

My problem here is that I think (I mean, I truly believe) cops abuse their power continually, and being that they're afforded the ability to wield that "power" over people's heads (and you and I both know they love to do it), their actions should be open to scrutiny. If I ran things, I'd double the size of IAD, and cut the "force" in half. I think they're all a bunch of glorified "bouncers" (no offense). IOW, they're half-witted, meter maid, cowboys with automatics. And tasers.

I mean, let's face it - they're revenue generators and paperwork filers, period. That's all these idiots do.


I agree with you completely that they wield their "power" far too freely and without enough oversight and that leads to situations like these where instead of doing the common sense thing, they do what is easy.

An update.

The cops were cleared and justified in their use of force after a full investigation.

The investigation report:
http://www.wftv.com/download/2007/1024/14414374.pdf

The news story:
http://www.wftv.com/news/14413428/detail.html

An update.

The cops were cleared and justified in their use of force after a full investigation.

The investigation report:
http://www.wftv.com/download/2007/1024/14414374.pdf

The news story:
http://www.wftv.com/news/14413428/detail.html
Playing devil's advocate here, how much does this really mean? A police agency cleared a police agency of wrongdoing. Color me cynical, but that doesn't seem very meaningful.

Amen, Borg.

Playing devil's advocate here, how much does this really mean? A police agency cleared a police agency of wrongdoing. Color me cynical, but that doesn't seem very meaningful.

I would say "read the report." It's pretty thorough, objective, and well-reasoned. And all of the facts seem easily verifiable.

Feel free to point out the flaws or potential for bias in the report if you see it. I'd be curious to hear why people would still lay blame on the officers.

I would say "read the report." It's pretty thorough, objective, and well-reasoned. And all of the facts seem easily verifiable.

Feel free to point out the flaws or potential for bias in the report if you see it. I'd be curious to hear why people would still lay blame on the officers.I cannot believe you are an attorney! (Where'd you go to law school, btw. You've ignored that question many times. Hmmm...)

If you believe that this document is "objective, and well reasoned," I would love to sit across the table from you, Leper. As long as something parrots your take on an issue, it's well reasoned and objective. The very language of the document is inflamitory and slanted.

I hope this goes to trial.

I cannot believe you are an attorney! (Where'd you go to law school, btw. You've ignored that question many times. Hmmm...)

What this has to do with anything, I will never know. I guess you think an attorney can't have an opinion? Or you think the law school I went to is actually going to tell you something about my opinion or the way I think? I would think your wife would have proved otherwise.

How about containing your little obsession with what I do for a living? Obviously, I'm not telling you where I went to law school cause I'm not going to give out irrelevant, personal, and identifying information about myself to a stranger who attempts to make unnecessary and uninvited personal attacks toward me on a regular basis. Give it up, cause you have the same chances of success as if you asked me to give my bar card to a schizophrenic, homeless crackhead.

The very language of the document is inflamitory and slanted.

How about trying to be a little less conclusory instead of obsessing about my status as an attorney? Specifics please?

I hope this goes to trial.

This from the guy who complains that the criminal justice system is broken, at least in part due to the excessive amount of "petty" offenders we prosecute. Now, you advocate prosecuting a couple of police officers who are, at the very least, simply trying to do their job of enforcing the law while a few million people use 20/20 hindsight to question the manner in which they enforce it.

What this has to do with anything, I will never know. I guess you think an attorney can't have an opinion? I would think your wife would have proved otherwise.I would expect the opinion to be a little closer to reasonable and objective from an attorney on related matters.
How about containing your little obsession with what I do for a living? Is that possible for you?It's just funny, is all.
Obviously, I'm not telling you where I went to law school cause I'm not going to give out irrelevant, personal, and identifying information about myself to a stranger who attempts to make personal attacks toward me on a regular basis.Right, by knowing a law school, I could identify you! Gimme a break. Change your handle from Leper to Paranoid. And these are not personal attacks; they are attacks on your judgement in the specific issue at hand. In other matters I support you and your positions. Shit, Lep, this is a discussion about opinions here!

How about trying to be a little less conclusory instead of obsessing about my status as an attorney? Specifics please?To use one of my new favorites: I would say, "read it." Notice the use of the words, "escort, resist, violence, et al." This is a document intended to justify and defend the actions of the officers involved. Can you point to any admissions of failure, wrong conduct, or even oops on the part of the cops? How objective is this, really?

This from the guy who complains that the criminal justice system is broken, at least in part due to the amount of "petty" offenders we prosecute. Now, you advocate prosecuting a couple of police officers who are, at the very least, simply trying to do their job of enforcing the law while a few million people use 20/20 hindsight to question the manner in which they enforce the law.Wrong again, Leper. I'm saying I hope the case against the kid goes to trial, so you, and others, can hear from the defense instead of just relying on the supporting documents of the cops. I have never in this matter said the cops should be jailed, tried, etc.

Hell, do you even thing we need a trial system in this country. Afterall, the internal police documents are fair and objective, thorough and well-reasoned. (That was my favorite, btw, "well reasoned." Where was any reasoning at all involved in this review?)

Can you point to any admissions of failure, wrong conduct, or even oops on the part of the cops? How objective is this, really?
Here's the crux of your argument, and you unwittingly reveal why your argument here fails. You decry the lack of objectivity from your subjective, opinionated point of view. How objective are you being?

I would expect the opinion to be a little closer to reasonable and objective from an attorney on related matters.

And I would expect an adult to act a little more civilly in a civil discussion. I guess we can share our disappointment together. If it makes you feel better, feel free to assume I'm lying and I'm not an attorney. Believe it or not, it really makes no difference to me what you think I do for a living.


It's just funny, is all.


Once again, I fail to understand your sense of humor, but whatever gets your rocks off, dude...

Right, by knowing a law school, I could identify you! Gimme a break.

Try to imagine a person with a little ingenuity. Frankly, what makes me most "paranoid" is the fact that I don't see why the hell you want that information in the first place. Because you don't believe I'm an attorney? If I say "Harvard," then you will believe me? Whatever your motivation is, I honestly don't care to find out.

To use one of my new favorites: I would say, "read it." Notice the use of the words, "escort, resist, violence, et al." This is a document intended to justify and defend the actions of the officers involved.

I disagree. It's a document intended to justify the agency's conclusion. If they came out and just said "The cops are innocent of any wrongdoing," that would be a lot less credible than releasing a full report detailing their investigation and the reasons behind their conclusions.

Can you point to any admissions of failure, wrong conduct, or even oops on the part of the cops?

I know it's hard to fathom, but it just might be possible that the police acted properly, which seems to be the ultimate conclusion of the investigation.

How objective is this, really?

Well, FDLE is a different agency from the University of Florida Police. I guess you can argue that FDLE is biased because both agencies are involved in law enforcement and all law enforcement personel are one gigantic brotherhood that will do anything to cover one another's tracks.

But they do cite to 30 witnesses they interviewed along with 10-20 recordings of the incident, so at the very least, they did a sound investigation, particularly considering that this was only a misdemeanor crime.

Wrong again, Leper. I'm saying I hope the case against the kid goes to trial, so you, and others, can hear from the defense instead of just relying on the supporting documents of the cops.

Ah, thought you were talking about the cops...particularly considering the nature of the investigation (investigating criminal charges against the cops) and your past stances on police prosecution.

Hell, do you even thing we need a trial system in this country.

Yep. The police documents are not about whether the guy should be charged with a crime, nor do they advocate convicting the guy without a trial.

Afterall, the internal police documents are fair and objective, thorough and well-reasoned. (That was my favorite, btw, "well reasoned." Where was any reasoning at all involved in this review?)

Well, for one thing, they cite the guideline (the "Use of Force Matrix") for using force and analyze whether the officers' conduct falls within the policy. They also fairly categorize the incident with a predefined level of resistance (resistance level 4 - a level which justifies use of "pain compliance") with the level of force used.

Furthermore, they consulted with a training instructor to obtain his opinion on whether the level of force was appropriate. The training instructor "opined" the guy "clearly exhibited a level of force above the passive physical level minimum at which a Taser can be deployed."

Call me crazy, but that seems well-reasoned to me. At the very least, it's not like the agency is willy-nilly firing off opinions. They're interviewing lots of people, they're looking at police guidelines for use of force, and they're talking to police instructors to find out what police are taught in training.

Apparently, you think that the investigation is a joke, but it looks like they've done a lengthy and involved investigation and traced their reasoning pretty damn well to me.

Here's the crux of your argument, and you unwittingly reveal why your argument here fails. You decry the lack of objectivity from your subjective, opinionated point of view. How objective are you being?Wrong again! I'm saying that, in any stress situation involving multiple parties, there is bound to be some degree of mistake on both sides. (Just watching the vids they cite I can see easy cause for question in some areas on the part of the cops, or at least that do not support the report's characterizations.)

Were such a matter revealed in the report, it would shore up its credibility. As none is mentioned, it betrays the onesidedness on the report.

It's a document intended to justify the agency's conclusion.Right. It is not a document intended to examine the issues, but rather to justify their conclusion. Which is why it is hardly objective.

Quite a few statements in the dolcument cause me to consider it a whitewash.

The young man is accused of conspiracy to cause a riot. That is a stretch that is too far for anyone to reasonably consider. There was no conspiracy to cause a riot. That much is very plain.

He made comments a week before. So what. Many people make comments. He was at a political rally where comments are made by many people. Did the officers hear the comments he supposedly made the week before? Did he threaten to start a riot at the Kerry question and answer session?

There were unproven allegations of prior pranks. Unproven allegations. That could mean that someone simply said he was a prankster. Unproven is pretty unequivical. It means there was no proof he committed prior pranks. Does our law enforcement system now deport itself on a supposition of guilt in unproven accusations?

The young man had a web page on which protected speech was posted. The operative words are protected speech.

The officer touched him and began to escort him from the microphone. This is an out and out lie. The officer came up behind him, grabbed him and started pulling him from the room.

A signal was given for the microphone to be shut off. Yes, a signal was given but the microphone was not yet cut off as can clearly be seen in the video. There was a lag time between the signal and the actual cutting off of the microphone.

The suspect was brought to the ground. At this point he was basically subdued. There were at least four officers lying on top of him. There was no way he could have escaped or injured them.

The taser was applied for five seconds. Five seconds is an extremely long period of time for a taser to be deployed. Try counting slowly from one to five to see just how long a period of time that is.



It is quite clear that this is a whitewash. The decision was most likely made before the document was even written.

Quite a few statements in the document cause me to consider it a whitewash.

The young man is accused of conspiracy to cause a riot. That is a stretch that is too far for anyone to reasonably consider. There was no conspiracy to cause a riot. That much is very plain.

It's equally plain that he was not accused, nor charged with violating that subsection of the statute. He was charged with disrupting a school function (the previous subsection of the statute), and resisting arrest with violence, both of which he plainly did as seen on videotape.


He made comments a week before. So what. Many people make comments. He was at a political rally where comments are made by many people. Did the officers hear the comments he supposedly made the week before? Did he threaten to start a riot at the Kerry question and answer session?

The comments were related to the officers conducting the investigation by a witness. No, he didn't threaten to start a riot, but that is, of course, completely irrelevant since he wasn't charged with that offense.


There were unproven allegations of prior pranks. Unproven allegations. That could mean that someone simply said he was a prankster. Unproven is pretty unequivical. It means there was no proof he committed prior pranks. Does our law enforcement system now deport itself on a supposition of guilt in unproven accusations?

It calls into question Mr. Meyer's motives, and behavior at the Kerry rally. The police officers on the scene didn't use this information in deciding what force was appropriate to take him into custody.


The officer touched him and began to escort him from the microphone. This is an out and out lie.

On the contrary, it's a very accurate description of events.


The officer came up behind him, grabbed him and started pulling him from the room.

Complete bull.


A signal was given for the microphone to be shut off. Yes, a signal was given but the microphone was not yet cut off as can clearly be seen in the video. There was a lag time between the signal and the actual cutting off of the microphone.

So what?


The suspect was brought to the ground. At this point he was basically subdued. There were at least four officers lying on top of him.

There were no officers ever lying on him.


There was no way he could have escaped or injured them.

As it should be. You seem to be suggesting they should have used fewer cops to make the odds more even :)


The taser was applied for five seconds. Five seconds is an extremely long period of time for a taser to be deployed.

On the contrary, it's the normal amount of time. Tasers have a five second discharge cycle.


Try counting slowly from one to five to see just how long a period of time that is.

Good grief.


It is quite clear that this is a whitewash. The decision was most likely made before the document was even written.

I must say, that's an excellent example of one of those "unproven allegations" you were complaining about.

:)

:)

Just a smile Old Phart? :)

Can't say I am at all surprised by your post, Vilepagan.

:)

Can't say I am at all surprised by your post, Vilepagan.

Nor I yours, Frogger. More's the pity.

Just a smile Old Phart? :)

Just happy to see this issue conclude (and I'm pleasantly surprised that the police were not "scapegoated").

I was stopped by Dallas' finest this morning on the way to work. Not only did one cop stop me, two more cars pulled up beside him to make sure he was OK while he was talking to me. Fortunately, he waved them on. Checked my seat belt (which I WAS wearing), driver's license, proof of insurance, ran me for warrants... informed me I had a tail light out on the driver's side and suggested I get it fixed. Told me to have a nice day and sent me on my way.

Imagine that... no taser, nobody dragged me out of the car by my hair, nuthin.

Maybe the fact that I remained respectful had something to do with making what could be a scary experience turn out OK?

Sorry I don't have anything more exciting to report. I know some of you will be greatly disappointed.

;)
SMW

Yeah!!! Maybe if you beg him not to fuck you, he won't. Just remain calm, deferential, kiss his dimpled ass cheeks, and above all else, DON'T QUESTION HIM - you have no right to do that.

See how easy that is, everyone? You, too, can be a eunuch!

Yeah!!! Maybe if you beg him not to fuck you, he won't. Just remain calm, deferential, kiss his dimpled ass cheeks, and above all else, DON'T QUESTION HIM - you have no right to do that.

See how easy that is, everyone? You, too, can be a eunuch!

Don't forget to wear your seat belt, have a current license and inspection sticker and valid insurance. But even with all that, if you spit in his dimpled face, you'll probably get tasered. Your choice, eh?

:lolhit:

If I spit on him, he wouldn't taze me - he'd pistol whip me within an inch of my life, but first, he'd take the switchblade "plant" he's got in the glove box of his cruiser, he'd stick himself in the arm with it, and then he'd charge me with resisting arrest and attempted murder.

If I spit on him, he wouldn't taze me - he'd pistol whip me within an inch of my life, but first, he'd take the switchblade "plant" he's got in the glove box of his cruiser, he'd stick himself in the arm with it, and then he'd charge me with resisting arrest and attempted murder.

ITA. Probably why most people don't choose to spit on cops.

It's one thing to accidently get yourself into a position of defending yourself against a person who carries a gun, pepperspray AND a taser... not to mention a badge. Quite another to rile them on purpose.

Guaranteed, you'll lose that fight everytime.

;)

...and then he'd charge me with resisting arrest and attempted murder.Attempted capital murder.

ITA. Probably why most people don't choose to spit on cops.

It's one thing to accidently get yourself into a position of defending yourself against a person who carries a gun, pepperspray AND a taser... not to mention a badge. Quite another to rile them on purpose.

Guaranteed, you'll lose that fight everytime.

;)
Yep.

It's nice to know that doesn't bother you. Wouldn't wanna "rile" those power-hungry shitbags for any reason, whatsoever, because we all know (and some of us make excuses for) what they're gonna do next. It's better just to steer clear of 'em, but always know that if an officer "of the law" drops his trousers at any time, then you need to get on your knees as quickly as possible or face the consequences.

Boy, they've got you trained.

Attempted capital murder.
True. Such a distinction makes them even more repugnant to me. Essentially, they've codified into law that officers are "more important" than the rest of us are. What a fucking joke.

True. Such a distinction makes them even more repugnant to me. Essentially, they've codified into law that officers are "more important" than the rest of us are. What a fucking joke.

Sorry you're so disappointed in me, darlin. Remember that old adage about Christians? "I'm not perfect, just forgiven?"

Tail light's been 'out' for 2 years now. It's not the bulb, it's someplace in the wiring... just never bothered to get it fixed.

I'll play the system my way, you play it your way. Mine is alot less stressful.

;)
SMW

Yep.

It's nice to know that doesn't bother you. Wouldn't wanna "rile" those power-hungry shitbags for any reason, whatsoever, because we all know (and some of us make excuses for) what they're gonna do next. It's better just to steer clear of 'em, but always know that if an officer "of the law" drops his trousers at any time, then you need to get on your knees as quickly as possible or face the consequences.

Boy, they've got you trained.
I don't know that you understand how to deal with police officers, Prae. Treat them with a fair amount of respect and they'll usually do the same thing to you, unless they're assholes. Spit on one and all bets are off. But why would you? That's a spectacularly stupid thing to do.

Sorry you're so disappointed in me, darlin.
I'm not disappointed in you - you're free to take it up the ass any way you see fit. You can call it "accepting" the reality of having to deal with an officer, and that's fine - I'm not arguing with your logic here; I'm arguing with your thoughtless indifference anent their callous, vindictive, and highly corrupt behavior.
Tail light's been 'out' for 2 years now. It's not the bulb, it's someplace in the wiring... just never bothered to get it fixed.
Go to a Radio Shack and get some electro-contact cleaner. Spray it into the bulb housing and check to see if that helps. The contact points may not be impinging on the bulb itself (due to fouling, or a bad spring in the socket, etc.); I'd check to see if it's seating properly when you put it in. I'd almost be willing to bet that's your problem because wiring is (well, 99.99999999% of the time, that is) never an issue. I seriously doubt you have a short somewhere because your lights run on a closed circuit, hence you'd most likely blow a fuse if that were the case.

Hope that helps. :)

Spit on one and all bets are off. But why would you? That's a spectacularly stupid thing to do.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I fully agree.

I'm not disappointed in you - you're free to take it up the ass any way you see fit. You can call it "accepting" the reality of having to deal with an officer, and that's fine - I'm not arguing with your logic here; I'm arguing with your thoughtless indifference anent their callous, vindictive, and highly corrupt behavior.

Go to a Radio Shack and get some electro-contact cleaner. Spray it into the bulb housing and check to see if that helps. The contact points may not be impinging on the bulb itself (due to fouling, or a bad spring in the socket, etc.); I'd check to see if it's seating properly when you put it in. I'd almost be willing to bet that's your problem because wiring is (well, 99.99999999% of the time, that is) never an issue. I seriously doubt you have a short somewhere because your lights run on a closed circuit, hence you'd most likely blow a fuse if that were the case.

Hope that helps. :)

Thx for the advice.

Not to prolong the discussion... but your thoughtless indifference anent their callous, vindictive, and highly corrupt behavior.

He was real cute... and very courteous. Didn't see his hands that well, so don't know whether or not he was calloused.

:lolhit:

I was stopped by Dallas' finest this morning on the way to work. Not only did one cop stop me, two more cars pulled up beside him to make sure he was OK while he was talking to me. Fortunately, he waved them on. Checked my seat belt (which I WAS wearing), driver's license, proof of insurance, ran me for warrants... informed me I had a tail light out on the driver's side and suggested I get it fixed. Told me to have a nice day and sent me on my way.

Imagine that... no taser, nobody dragged me out of the car by my hair, nuthin.

Maybe the fact that I remained respectful had something to do with making what could be a scary experience turn out OK?

Sorry I don't have anything more exciting to report. I know some of you will be greatly disappointed.

;)
SMW

SMW - I have never had a bad experience with any police officers either- in fact quite a few have let me off with a warning after I was stopped for speeding - and they have been nothing but courteous with me. I respect their authority - but NOT when they abuse it. However, there ARE bad cops too. And if they are caught abusing the authority given to them - then they should be called up on it.

SMW - I have never had a bad experience with any police officers either- in fact quite a few have let me off with a warning after I was stopped for speeding - and they have been nothing but courteous with me. I respect their authority - but NOT when they abuse it. However, there ARE bad cops too. And if they are caught abusing the authority given to them - then they should be called up on it.

I agree. There are always a few bad apples... but I think it's wrong to judge them all by the indiscretions of a few. Those few are generally dealt with more severely than if in a private job. In other words, they're held to a higher standard of behavior than ordinary citizens... and that's a good thing.

I think I saw Prae on Cops once... he was the one who call a couple of officers pigs and they pulled him outta his car and worked him over pretty good. Bless his heart... really can't blame him for hating them all.

;)
SMW

Tail light's been 'out' for 2 years now. It's not the bulb, it's someplace in the wiring... just never bothered to get it fixed.How did you ever pass a safety inspection? Get your car fixed. You're a damn hazard on the road. My kids are driving out there, ya know!
I'll play the system my way, you play it your way. Mine is alot less stressful.Typical conservative position. All Law and Order, except fot them, except for the laws they want to break.:cool:

I agree. There are always a few bad apples... but I think it's wrong to judge them all by the indiscretions of a few. Those few are generally dealt with more severely than if in a private job.
No offense, but you're clueless in this regard - they're protected by their union and by their fellow officers. They're almost ALWAYS allowed to walk (unless it's politically unpopular - think; racism, for example). I heard a story not too long ago of an officer lying under oath and being caught doing so when a video tape surfaced that PROVED it, and what happened to him, you ask - oh, nothing much...he was suspended for two weeks without pay. He SWORE an oath to UPHOLD the law, and as someone whose testimony is valued more than yours or mine, they didn't even arrest him for perjury. And they didn't fire him either. Quite the contrary, actually - three weeks later, he was back in court providing "expert" testimony to put other "law breakers" in their place.

My attorney was the one who fucked this guy. I've been told by reliable sources (and have also read) stories that'd make you puke your guts out.

Most my friends from high school and college are in law enforcement in one capacity or another. Have to agree with Prae in his assessment of their status. They are above the law, and dont hesitate to "massage" the law. Maybe that says something about me and the friends i surrounded myself with growing up, but its hard for me to say exactly what that is. They are in law enforcement. So they cant be that bad, huh?


I will give one example though. I went to a christmas party one of my police officer buddies were throwing. He pulled his new rifle out and began showing me how it shot through trees. This was in an affluent neighborhood and the cops were called. They showed up and told his wife to put his drunk ass to bed. Anyone wanna bet what they'd done to me in similar circumstances?

Another badge wearing hero (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305361,00.html)

DUNCANNON, Pa. — A suspended Marysville police officer is accused of molesting or propositioning 14 girls ages 12 to 17, including mentally ill, mentally retarded and injured children.
A judge has ordered Robert Pavlovich Jr. held in the Perry County prison in lieu of $500,000 bail on numerous charges, including involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and corruption of minors. It's not immediately known if he has an attorney.
Pavlovich has been suspended from the Marysville police force since March. District Judge Daniel McGuire has ordered him to surrender his badge and have no contact with the girls named in the indictment.

I think most police officers are pretty good but there is a rather large minority that is not.

Think of the type person most likely to go into police work, someone authoritarian with a lockstep mindset. Then place that person among the scum of society, the thieves, murderers, pimps, hustlers. Add to this a blue wall of silence by which one officer does not ever rat on another officer and you have a breeding ground for corruption and abuse of power.

Why do police abuse their power? Because they know they can do so with virtual impunity. They are part of a brotherhood with a, we vs. them mentality. The we must be protected at all cost. Catch a fellow cop speeding. Don't report him. He is your brother in arms. Catch a fellow cop taking a small amount of graft. Don't report him. He is your brother in arms. Catch a fellow cop taking stuff from a crime scene. Don't report him. He is your brother in arms. Catch a fellow cop abusing his power. Don't report him. He is your brother in arms.

This mentality affects even the good, honest cops. They know that if they report a fellow cop for any infraction of the law they will be ostracized by their fellow officers. The closed network of policing fosters this kind of behavior.

I think most police officers are pretty good but there is a rather large minority that is not.

Think of the type person most likely to go into police work, someone authoritarian with a lockstep mindset. Then place that person among the scum of society, the thieves, murderers, pimps, hustlers. Add to this a blue wall of silence by which one officer does not ever rat on another officer and you have a breeding ground for corruption and abuse of power.

Why do police abuse their power? Because they know they can do so with virtual impunity. They are part of a brotherhood with a, we vs. them mentality. The we must be protected at all cost. Catch a fellow cop speeding. Don't report him. He is your brother in arms. Catch a fellow cop taking a small amount of graft. Don't report him. He is your brother in arms. Catch a fellow cop taking stuff from a crime scene. Don't report him. He is your brother in arms. Catch a fellow cop abusing his power. Don't report him. He is your brother in arms.

This mentality affects even the good, honest cops. They know that if they report a fellow cop for any infraction of the law they will be ostracized by their fellow officers. The closed network of policing fosters this kind of behavior.What you just described is a whole system of corruption. Are we not obliged, every one of us, to report a crime if we witness one? What makes police any better? Because they have a code of silence? So does the mafia.

This mentality affects even the good, honest cops. They know that if they report a fellow cop for any infraction of the law they will be ostracized by their fellow officers. The closed network of policing fosters this kind of behavior.See Zimbardo (Stanford Prison Study), and Milgram (Milgram experiment) for an even scarier possibility.

It is highly likely that even good folks, put into the environment cops find themselves in, can become real bastards.

I admire the cops that stay honest immensely. I imagine it must be quite hard.

An update: the douchebag's charges have been deferred in exchange for his good conduct for 18 months I believe.

http://www.wftv.com/news/14455144/detail.html

The shocking part to me is that he is still a student at UF.

How did you ever pass a safety inspection? Get your car fixed. You're a damn hazard on the road. My kids are driving out there, ya know!
Typical conservative position. All Law and Order, except fot them, except for the laws they want to break.:cool:

LOL, it's a friggin TAILIGHT, Shiloh, not a suicide bomb.

Typical liberal position. Instant hysteria.

Funny how I go from being called a mindless follower to accusations of being a criminal on the run... all in the same discussion.

That's what one can count on with libs... inconsistency. Whatever's blowing in the wind is their latest 'cause.' It's no wonder they never accomplish anything. Maybe it's ADD?

:lolhit:
SMW

An update: the douchebag's charges have been deferred in exchange for his good conduct for 18 months I believe.
Sounds like the same sort of deal Limbaugh got. I don't know what the call it in Florida, but in Texas it's a Deferred Adjudication type of probation.

LOL, it's a friggin TAILIGHT, Shiloh, not a suicide bomb.Get your car fixed, ya bum! Who'd you buy off at the Inspection place?

Get your car fixed, ya bum! Who'd you buy off at the Inspection place?

The cop who stopped me checked my sticker, Shiloh. Want I should get a second opinion??

:hula:

The cop who stopped me checked my sticker, Shiloh. Want I should get a second opinion??

:hula:
Do you didn't lawfully pass an inspection with a taillight out for the past two years. Try to stay on point: who'd you pay off at the Inspection place?:cool:

Do you didn't lawfully pass an inspection with a taillight out for the past two years. Try to stay on point: who'd you pay off at the Inspection place?:cool:

Wouldn't you like to know?

But I can't tell you ALL my secrets, darlin. Then you'd be as smart as me!

:lolhit:

Wouldn't you like to know?

But I can't tell you ALL my secrets, darlin. Then you'd be as smart as me!

:lolhit:Rats! Foiled again, Batman!

Do you didn't lawfully pass an inspection with a taillight out for the past two years. Try to stay on point: who'd you pay off at the Inspection place?:cool:
"Inspection place"??? What freaking state has those? In Illinois, they're called squad cars. You can be warned, or you can be issued a ticket, but if it's on record, and you're pulled over again for the same violation, then you're definitely getting burned. And again, and again, and again - until you fix the problem. A burnt out tail light isn't a moving violation (to my knowledge), hence if you're willing to pay the fine, then you can get a thousand tickets if you don't care about paying through the nose.

That said, it's a taillight, Shiloh - it's not like she's driving around a dump truck with no brakes.

"Inspection place"??? What freaking state has those? In Illinois, they're called squad cars. You can be warned, or you can be issued a ticket, but if it's on record, and you're pulled over again for the same violation, then you're definitely getting burned. And again, and again, and again - until you fix the problem. A burnt out tail light isn't a moving violation (to my knowledge), hence if you're willing to pay the fine, then you can get a thousand tickets if you don't care about paying through the nose.

That said, it's a taillight, Shiloh - it's not like she's driving around a dump truck with no brakes.

Prae, Texas has inspection places. Cars have to be inspected by certified stations every year. That's why Shiloh's so interested in how I got around that little detail. Bless his heart.

;)
SMW

That said, it's a taillight, Shiloh - it's not like she's driving around a dump truck with no brakes.I just think it's funny how the "get tough on crime" people, the "respect the law people," the folks who decry relativism in right and wrong, seem to feel it's okay for them to pick and choose.

Actually I don't give a rip. It's just funny. SMW knows I love 'er.

I just think it's funny how the "get tough on crime" people, the "respect the law people," the folks who decry relativism in right and wrong, seem to feel it's okay for them to pick and choose.

Actually I don't give a rip. It's just funny. SMW knows I love 'er.
Yeah, on real crime - not on out taillights. As long as you pay your tickets, I could really give a shit either way. If you're too dumb to fix the problem after being cited on a multitude of occasions, then that's your bad. Any logical person knows that it's cheaper to fix the taillight.

In light of Texas having inspection places, your point is valid. How DID you avoid being cited, SMW??? You smokin' a little cop sausage for a favor? You seem to like 'em enough.

Sounds like the same sort of deal Limbaugh got. I don't know what the call it in Florida, but in Texas it's a Deferred Adjudication type of probation.

Not even that I think...they said no formal court action whereas deferred adjudication requires a suspended judgment and sentence.

An update: the douchebag's charges have been deferred in exchange for his good conduct for 18 months I believe.

http://www.wftv.com/news/14455144/detail.html

The shocking part to me is that he is still a student at UF.

I think after all the bad press and judgment over this it was best to just let everything go. No charges for the officers,no charges for the kid. The kid basically committed a victim-less crime and got his ass lit up for it. No harm no foul. I am sure he will never do something like that again,as i am sure the officers will use more restraint next situation like that happens.

Yeah, on real crime - not on out taillights. As long as you pay your tickets, I could really give a shit either way. If you're too dumb to fix the problem after being cited on a multitude of occasions, then that's your bad. Any logical person knows that it's cheaper to fix the taillight.

In light of Texas having inspection places, your point is valid. How DID you avoid being cited, SMW??? You smokin' a little cop sausage for a favor? You seem to like 'em enough.

That wasn't very nice, Prae. But I'd save that one for when I murder somebody.

BTW, I've never been 'cited' -- just warned. Guess if they pistol-whip me, I'll get it fixed.

;)
SMW

I was just teasing you for liking cops. :) No offense meant. :flowers:

BTW, I've never been 'cited' -- just warned. Guess if they pistol-whip me, I'll get it fixed.

;)
SMW
Yeah, but I, too, am curious...how did you pass those inspections?

Woman slammed against car by S.J. police officer wins appeal
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

(10-30) 12:53 PDT SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court reinstated more than half of a jury's $200,500 damage award today to a nurse who was arrested and slammed against a car by a San Jose police officer at a fraternity party.

The jury found in 2005 that Laura Bushell-McIntyre was falsely arrested and subjected to excessive force in the February 2001 incident. But U.S. District Judge James Ware overturned the verdict and dismissed the suit, saying Bushell-McIntyre had been legally arrested after she touched the officer's badge to get his identification.
Today, however, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Ware had improperly second-guessed the jury's finding that the officer had used excessive force. Even if Bushell-McIntyre was legally arrested, the three-judge panel said, the jury was entitled to conclude that the officer overreacted and was needlessly violent.

The court restored $100,500 in damages for excessive force, plus interest. The city will not have to pay the jury's $100,000 damage award for an illegal arrest.

Bushell-McIntyre, a pediatric nurse who had just graduated from San Jose State, was attending the fraternity party when police arrived in response to a disturbance call. The court said she had complied with Officer William Foster's request to leave the house, but touched his badge after repeatedly asking him for his badge number.

Foster then put her in a pain compliance hold and slammed her against a car, the court said.
In overturning the jury's verdict, Ware ruled in September 2005 that Kallis had committed the crime of battery by touching Foster's badge without his consent. The appeals court agreed but said a legal arrest does not justify unreasonable force.

"A reasonable jury could have concluded, and did conclude, that Foster committed a constitutional violation by using excessive force in arresting Bushell-McIntyre," the court said.

"Bushell-McIntyre was not belligerent or intoxicated. She touched Foster's badge only slightly and after his own attempts to conceal his badge number."



I guess if you ask a cop for his badge number and he refuses to give it to you and in fact hides his badge you have no recourse. Not being able to identify a cop sets a dangerous precedent. The judge was wrong in my opinion.

http://www.sfgate.com/flat/archive/2007/10/30/chronicle/archive/2007/10/30/BA6QT3DMI.html