Although the dashboard camera captured the incident, the officer did not wear his microphone - a violation of department policy.



that right there is reason for suspension and review.

the officer did not wear his microphone - a violation of department policy.

*isolated incident

Weaver95: Although the dashboard camera captured the incident, the officer did not wear his microphone - a violation of department policy.



that right there is reason for suspension and review giving the guys a few days off while they wait for another f*ck-up in Tacoma to grab the headlines and all this to blow over.

FTFY

Over / under on # of comments before the authoritarians show up to defend Officer Fieldgoal?

FTFA: "After the arrest police found marijuana in the trunk of the car - but the case was dropped because the search was illegal."

Regardless of your stand on the legality of weed, the cops should learn a lesson from this. Illegal search and seizure lets people get away with crimes.

Now let's see how long it takes for someone to argue this is grounds for the further eroding of the 4th amendment...

2wolves: Over / under on # of comments before the authoritarians show up to defend Officer Fieldgoal?

If the article admits that the officer in question clearly violated well established and documented police procedure, I don't see how our local authoritarians can defend this guy. in fact, the authoritarians have to condemn him for his actions - he clearly violated procedure AND it's caught on camera.

Another day, another incompetent jackass causing problems instead of solving them from Seattle PD.

O'Neill, McGinn and Diaz will now tapdance across the screen, with Q13's David Rose reporting on the heartfelt solidarity of our valiant men and women in blue.

SPD circle jerk 2011 and soon 2012.

Weaver95: in fact, the authoritarians have to condemn him for his actions - he clearly violated procedure AND it's caught on camera.

If they were honest with themselves. We know this not to be the case.

doyner: FTFA: "After the arrest police found marijuana in the trunk of the car - but the case was dropped because the search was illegal."

Regardless of your stand on the legality of weed, the cops should learn a lesson from this. Illegal search and seizure lets people get away with crimes.

Now let's see how long it takes for someone to argue this is grounds for the further eroding of the 4th amendment...

Listen, pal, it's been since 2001 that our civil rights have eroded. Even before that it was the probable cause bullshiat (terry stop) that allowed cops to run their own streets the way they saw justice. As for my opinion, I would much rather see a criminal go free on a "technicality" than to allow cops to operate above the law. It's the protection of that phrase "innocent until proven guilty" that rings in my simple mind. Id' much rather have the legal system err on the side of that belief, than what passes for justice here in America these days.

special20: doyner: FTFA: "After the arrest police found marijuana in the trunk of the car - but the case was dropped because the search was illegal."

Regardless of your stand on the legality of weed, the cops should learn a lesson from this. Illegal search and seizure lets people get away with crimes.

Now let's see how long it takes for someone to argue this is grounds for the further eroding of the 4th amendment...

Listen, pal, it's been since 2001 that our civil rights have eroded. Even before that it was the probable cause bullshiat (terry stop) that allowed cops to run their own streets the way they saw justice. As for my opinion, I would much rather see a criminal go free on a "technicality" than to allow cops to operate above the law. It's the protection of that phrase "innocent until proven guilty" that rings in my simple mind. Id' much rather have the legal system err on the side of that belief, than what passes for justice here in America these days.

Lighten up, Francis. Re-read my post and re-assess the opinion being stated. Rinse, repeat.

RIF.

crouchingturbo: There should be a 1:1 ratio of camera person to police officer at all times, taxpayer-funded and not a member of the PD or beholden to it. (It would probably save money in avoiding these lawsuits). Police officers should be held to a higher standard than the average person, given the amount of authority we entrust to them. The penalties for committing crimes while wearing a badge should also be 5 or 10 times worse.

How about we make mandatory minimum sentences apply ONLY to government officials? That could be an elegant solution.

doyner: g

Francis has had at least 4 local brewed beers, 1 shot of Jager, and is working on the remnants of what saki he has left. The comprehension must be as clouded as cold nigori.Otherwise, who cares? I've stated an opinion, and in summary, it is my belief that cops are people who have failed at life. That's my agenda. Cop hater. Drunk. Problem?

But they are doing wonders for slapstick comedy.

Admit it. A kick to the groin may be low hanging fruit, but as long as it's not you, you're laughing at it.

special20: doyner: g

Francis has had at least 4 local brewed beers, 1 shot of Jager, and is working on the remnants of what saki he has left. The comprehension must be as clouded as cold nigori.Otherwise, who cares? I've stated an opinion, and in summary, it is my belief that cops are people who have failed at life. That's my agenda. Cop hater. Drunk. Problem?

Ah. Angry drunk. I can venture a guess as to why you're not terribly enamored with police.

/I do agree with your point, just not you.

SN1987a goes boom: Or they planted it and fubared that too.

Entirely plausible.

BSABSVR: Weaver95: Although the dashboard camera captured the incident, the officer did not wear his microphone - a violation of department policy.



that right there is reason for suspension and review.

Here's the gross part:

Seattle PD has been having a LOT of problems recently, and in response the city tried to fire a couple of officers. The police union appealed to an arbitrator, who said that those cops can't be fired because other police who did similar things didn't get fired. Basically, because police misconduct has been overlooked up until now, it pretty much must continue to be overlooked going forward.

Doesn't that line of reason make sense though? The worker gains protection in the light of fairness. Me? I don't like cops but I'll defend their right to being treated fairly in the workplace.

indylaw: special20: Doesn't that line of reason make sense though? The worker gains protection in the light of fairness. Me? I don't like cops but I'll defend their right to being treated fairly in the workplace.

It only makes sense if you're a fool or a bad cop. It's like saying that you can't convict one man of theft because the last two thieves were acquitted on technicalities or because their dads were friends with the judge.

If the department failed to discipline bad police officers in the past, it needs to start now. F*ck the police unions. They're part of the problem.

Sadly, this is a perfect example of unions winning a battle that could lose them the war. Blind support for its constituents serves no one.

indylaw: special20: Doesn't that line of reason make sense though? The worker gains protection in the light of fairness. Me? I don't like cops but I'll defend their right to being treated fairly in the workplace.

It only makes sense if you're a fool or a bad cop. It's like saying that you can't convict one man of theft because the last two thieves were acquitted on technicalities or because their dads were friends with the judge.

If the department failed to discipline bad police officers in the past, it needs to start now. F*ck the police unions. They're part of the problem.

no, the problem is those a-holes that throw away common sense. I agree with you that it has to start now - were you ever the poor sap that was "made an example" in school or any other social conglomo? It stands to reason that sense of the law must be made at some point. On the one hand, yes, I think cops can't be above the law, and on the other, yes, their does need to be a standard applied by the union to start a new baseline. Also, it may just be that a lawyer is kicking some ass on the side of the union, and simply just earning his/her pay. Right?