Cop all around the country call that "business as usual"

oops

The DA says its perfectly legal because the person using the illegal wire tap thought it was legal. WTF?

Fark the police _{(new window)} NSFW lyrics

A triumphant success of checks and balances. Minus the checks and balances, and with a heaping serving of corruption.

ShawnDoc: The DA says its perfectly legal because the person using the illegal wire tap thought it was legal. WTF?

Best line in the article. What law is so weak that a person is guilty only if they thought that they were commiting a crime?

Cops conduct their own investigation? It says in the article that the prosecutors office conducted the investigation. Could subby actually think that the prosecutor's office is part of the police department?

Russ1642: Best line in the article. What law is so weak that a person is guilty only if they thought that they were commiting a crime?

Any law that requires specific intent. The wiretapping law apparently requires that the person have intent to use the recording for unlawful purposes. Since that element of the crime didn't exist or couldn't be proven, there was no prosecutable violation of the law. That's what the prosecutor was saying.

Giant Clown Shoe: I wonder how will the badgelickers defend this one?

Ah, using a Rush Limbaugh tactic. "Anyone who disagrees with me is a useless liberal. Now who wants to disagree with me?"

Here's what the article said: The police administration monitored the employees interactions with the public without telling them. The employees found out and complained. The prosecutor's office, an outside agany not affiliated with the police department, investigated and found that there was no violation of the law because the police administration had no intent to use the results of their monitoring for illegal purposes. The police administration changes its policy and will notify employees that they're being monitored in the future. Its essentially a non-story. Internal stuff that happens all the time in businesses.

But it gets greenlit on Fark because subby turns it into a cop-hater story. Even though it involves the police administration, some civilian employees of the police department and the prosecutors office, and a complaint about internal business practices, it becomes an example of how "all cops cover up for each others illegal acts." It's not even close to that.

punkhippie: PrinceOf Fark and CruiserTwelve:

Save your breath, twatwaffles. Of course it's all fine with you. You're pigs and so you think pigs should be able to do whatever they want. Big surprise there.

But it's scumbags like you that make the rest of us "pussies" do things that make you all butthurt - like pointing out that you're lying sacks of shiat and calling you pigs.

Do us all a favor and take two for the team. Pretty please.

Wow, you've totally refuted the entire contents of my post with that one. You must be some kind of genius.

punkhippie: Save your breath, twatwaffles. Of course it's all fine with you. You're pigs and so you think pigs should be able to do whatever they want. Big surprise there.

But it's scumbags like you that make the rest of us "pussies" do things that make you all butthurt - like pointing out that you're lying sacks of shiat and calling you pigs.

Okay, even though your post is undeserving of a rational response, I'll provide one.

If you are of the belief that cops routinely violate the law and cover for each other when such violation comes to light, there are often news articles about incidents that might support your belief. This article does not. It was a routine complaint about an internal business practice, it was investigated by the agency that's charged with the responsibility of investigating criminal complaints, and it was found that no laws were violated. The police administration recognized that their business practice was making their employees uncomfortable, so they changed the practice. It's a non-story that does not support the Fark headline that was attached to it, and does not support your belief about cops.

Giant Clown Shoe: I just wanted to post the pic, use badgelicker and fan the flames. I didn't even read the article.

So you admit that you formed an opinion based on preconceptions and a lack of knowledge of the subject. There's a name for that.

/I'll be back later to read the fun.
//only two kinds of cops- dirty cops and cops that allow dirty cops to get away with it.
///cops lie
////type away badgewearers and badgelickers

After I point out the invalidity of your tactic, you use it again.

Why bother coming back here? Nothing that is said will sway your opinion of cops in any way. You decry talk radio as "a bunch of bad loser shouting at the rain." Why then do you feel compelled to come back here and shout at the rain?

fredklein: The article says "After reviewing a Police Department internal investigation report...", meaning he based his findings (at least in part) on the police departments own findings.

They would be idiots if they didn't begin their investigation by reading the police reports to find out the facts of the case. Presumably those reports would contain statements from the witnesses and victims. If there are any questions or areas that were not investigated properly or thoroughly, the prosecutor's officer has investigators to follow up and/or conduct their own investigation. The prosecutor then applies the law to the facts of the case to determine if any laws were violated. In this case they determined that there were not. It appears the police administration determined that their policy was faulty, so they changed the policy. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.