If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Indiana)   ♫ I shot the sheriff ♫ And I did it legally in Indiana ♫   (allgov.com) divider line 312
    More: Interesting, first state, Fraternal Order of Police, law enforcement officers, sheriffs  
•       •       •

23531 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jun 2012 at 11:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



312 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
m00
2012-06-12 10:50:21 AM  

SkunkWerks: She has a right to pull over where she likes- which would include "not in a deserted area". She can do this without being charged for it.


Nope. I got pulled over in heavy traffic on one of those rural routes that had no business being a major artery, because I had my front and rear license plates reversed (rear is supposed to have registration sticker, not front). I drove 50 feet and pulled into a parkinglot. Cop came out with gun drawn, and told me that when his sirens come on I better f-ing pull over then and there. I got screamed at for a good 5 minutes and he dropped a lot of f-bombs. Then he said he had every right to shoot me, but would let me off easy this time, by not shooting me.
 
2012-06-12 10:51:21 AM  

SkunkWerks: Moral of the story, again: people who are inclined to "go rogue" and resist duly appointed authorities- even when they couldn't be further in the wrong- are always going to do this. They don't need laws to encourage them. In fact, they'll do it anyway in spite of laws enacted specifically to discourage them.


First, CSB on the census thing. I wouldn't want that job. I would have been one of those "rogue" people though...sort of. I only fill out the part that is constitutionally mandated, the number of people. As you spelled out, the purpose is to count the people for the allocation of resources etc. That doesn't require 4 pages, and it most certainly doesn't require 60.

That's a whole other issue though...

As far as your point that I quoted above, I tend to agree, for the most part. There will be those, though, that take this as a license to be a jackass on a traffic stop or during a warrant service. I think that the number of people that take this approach is probably about equal to the number of people that will be effected by the law as it is intended. So I think that it's a net waste of time, plus a few dead people (most of them NOT being the police). So yeah, excellent job there Indiana.
 
2012-06-12 10:53:06 AM  

dittybopper: Silly Jesus: dittybopper: Writing a ticket for going through a stop sign is something a reasonable person would believe is part of the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties, whether or not the person thinks they actually did so or not.

Thanks for the ad hominem...it really pumps the validity if your argument...

I didn't pick your name, but you weaken your argument by *NOT* specifically quoting my ad hominem (which I freely admit to doing), and instead quote my reasoned argument while complaining about the ad hominem. It's almost like you've never done this sort of thing before.

/What, 20 for this? You must be mad!


Huh?
 
2012-06-12 10:53:39 AM  

Silly Jesus: My point is that if the person believes they did no wrong, then in their mind (which appears to be the only standard) the act is not a part of the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.


That is *NOT* the standard. The standard is what "a reasonable person believes". That has a specific legal meaning.
 
2012-06-12 10:56:57 AM  

Allen262: buckler: fastbow: My Lord. I can smell the bullshiat through my monitor. Geneva Convention does not regulate the use of weapons in any way, shape, or form. That's the Hague Convention. Which the US never signed.

I recall in my boot camp training that Geneva Conventions specifically regulate the use of certain heavy-caliber weapons, such as the .50 caliber machinegun, making it illegal to use them against personnel.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 295x520]

Calls BS. We give a Medal of Honor for using one on Jerrys!

Link


IIRC you can still use such weapons against materiel. i.e. the uniform, helmet, rifle, boots, etc etc

If there happens to be a human body inside of that military equipment then that's just unfortunate.
 
2012-06-12 11:00:53 AM  

m00: SkunkWerks: She has a right to pull over where she likes- which would include "not in a deserted area". She can do this without being charged for it.

Nope. I got pulled over in heavy traffic on one of those rural routes that had no business being a major artery, because I had my front and rear license plates reversed (rear is supposed to have registration sticker, not front). I drove 50 feet and pulled into a parkinglot. Cop came out with gun drawn, and told me that when his sirens come on I better f-ing pull over then and there. I got screamed at for a good 5 minutes and he dropped a lot of f-bombs. Then he said he had every right to shoot me, but would let me off easy this time, by not shooting me.


Getting charged =/= Getting convicted

I've had run-ins with cops on the road who have purposely trumped up charges on me I didn't deserve.

There's a remedy for this: Challenge it.
 
2012-06-12 11:03:29 AM  

dittybopper: Silly Jesus: My point is that if the person believes they did no wrong, then in their mind (which appears to be the only standard) the act is not a part of the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.

That is *NOT* the standard. The standard is what "a reasonable person believes". That has a specific legal meaning.


Yes...that's how it would be sorted out in court after someone is dead...my concern is with the way in which society in general will interpret it. Everyone thinks that their own opinion is reasonable.
 
2012-06-12 11:10:00 AM  

SkunkWerks: m00: SkunkWerks: She has a right to pull over where she likes- which would include "not in a deserted area". She can do this without being charged for it.

Nope. I got pulled over in heavy traffic on one of those rural routes that had no business being a major artery, because I had my front and rear license plates reversed (rear is supposed to have registration sticker, not front). I drove 50 feet and pulled into a parkinglot. Cop came out with gun drawn, and told me that when his sirens come on I better f-ing pull over then and there. I got screamed at for a good 5 minutes and he dropped a lot of f-bombs. Then he said he had every right to shoot me, but would let me off easy this time, by not shooting me.

Getting charged =/= Getting convicted

I've had run-ins with cops on the road who have purposely trumped up charges on me I didn't deserve.

There's a remedy for this: Challenge it.


Those trumped up charges *shouldn't* be allowed in the first place. Citizens shouldn't have to waste their time to challenge an unlawful and unnecessary arrest because the cops don't understand their job.
 
m00
2012-06-12 11:14:55 AM  

SkunkWerks: m00: SkunkWerks: She has a right to pull over where she likes- which would include "not in a deserted area". She can do this without being charged for it.

Nope. I got pulled over in heavy traffic on one of those rural routes that had no business being a major artery, because I had my front and rear license plates reversed (rear is supposed to have registration sticker, not front). I drove 50 feet and pulled into a parkinglot. Cop came out with gun drawn, and told me that when his sirens come on I better f-ing pull over then and there. I got screamed at for a good 5 minutes and he dropped a lot of f-bombs. Then he said he had every right to shoot me, but would let me off easy this time, by not shooting me.

Getting charged =/= Getting convicted

I've had run-ins with cops on the road who have purposely trumped up charges on me I didn't deserve.

There's a remedy for this: Challenge it.


I don't think it's wise to challenge people with guns who are legally allowed to shoot you for whatever reason they see fit. :p
 
2012-06-12 11:16:11 AM  

Silly Jesus: That doesn't require 4 pages


I think that could be debated. Things are a bit more complex now than they were in our Founding Fathers' era.

Silly Jesus: and it most certainly doesn't require 60.


This however, as I said, even I'll admit is a fair statement, however. As I understand it, the "long form" used ten years later was, in fact, considerably shorter, and it was for this reason precisely.

Silly Jesus: I would have been one of those "rogue" people though...sort of.


Well, he wasn't the only one dodging me. I had a number of people simply refuse to answer the door, as a for instance. Some I would later catch up with, some were more stubborn.

He happens to be the most memorable though, and the most relevant to the point I was making, not only did he dodge the form- which he was, by the way, very much in the wrong on in a purely legal sense, philosophy aside- he took great pains to waste a good deal of my time (and as I said, his money) expounding on why he thought he was in the right here.

And he was in fact, wrong on nearly EVERY count.

My point really is that the sort of person you're describing isn't rational. He thinks he is, but that's really part of the problem, a problem you're always going to have, whether all of his justifications are actually backed up in legalese or not. My point is: this is the sort of guy who's going to get in your way, purely because he feels he can. He enjoys the act for it's own sake.

All the arm-chair lawyering is just the frosting on the cake for him.
 
2012-06-12 11:18:19 AM  

redmid17: Those trumped up charges *shouldn't* be allowed in the first place.


So, how would you suggest we remedy this? Do we need a magistrate riding shotgun in every patrol car?

Principally? Philosophically? I completely understand the objection. Pragmatically speaking, I don't think there's a solution to that. The Judicial and the Executive are separate for a reason.
 
2012-06-12 11:20:19 AM  

m00: I don't think it's wise to challenge people with guns who are legally allowed to shoot you for whatever reason they see fit. :p


That's why you check the box on the ticket that signifies some form of "I am challenging this" before you send it back. After the cop has had his jollies.

Also:

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-06-12 11:20:50 AM  

SkunkWerks: Silly Jesus: That doesn't require 4 pages

I think that could be debated. Things are a bit more complex now than they were in our Founding Fathers' era.

Silly Jesus: and it most certainly doesn't require 60.

This however, as I said, even I'll admit is a fair statement, however. As I understand it, the "long form" used ten years later was, in fact, considerably shorter, and it was for this reason precisely.

Silly Jesus: I would have been one of those "rogue" people though...sort of.

Well, he wasn't the only one dodging me. I had a number of people simply refuse to answer the door, as a for instance. Some I would later catch up with, some were more stubborn.

He happens to be the most memorable though, and the most relevant to the point I was making, not only did he dodge the form- which he was, by the way, very much in the wrong on in a purely legal sense, philosophy aside- he took great pains to waste a good deal of my time (and as I said, his money) expounding on why he thought he was in the right here.

And he was in fact, wrong on nearly EVERY count.

My point really is that the sort of person you're describing isn't rational. He thinks he is, but that's really part of the problem, a problem you're always going to have, whether all of his justifications are actually backed up in legalese or not. My point is: this is the sort of guy who's going to get in your way, purely because he feels he can. He enjoys the act for it's own sake.

All the arm-chair lawyering is just the frosting on the cake for him.


Fair enough.
 
2012-06-12 11:21:40 AM  

SkunkWerks: redmid17: Those trumped up charges *shouldn't* be allowed in the first place.

So, how would you suggest we remedy this? Do we need a magistrate riding shotgun in every patrol car?

Principally? Philosophically? I completely understand the objection. Pragmatically speaking, I don't think there's a solution to that. The Judicial and the Executive are separate for a reason.


^^^THIS

I was about to say the same thing, but with less expensive words.
 
2012-06-12 11:24:03 AM  
Bottom line: dead cop? Great cop. Anyway it happens.
 
m00
2012-06-12 11:30:36 AM  

SkunkWerks: m00: I don't think it's wise to challenge people with guns who are legally allowed to shoot you for whatever reason they see fit. :p

That's why you check the box on the ticket that signifies some form of "I am challenging this" before you send it back. After the cop has had his jollies.


So you've never heard of the blue wall of silence, or targeted harassment? These things never happen, right? All a cop needs to shoot you is reasonable suspicion (in his own mind!) that you posed an immediate threat.
 
2012-06-12 11:38:48 AM  

m00: So you've never heard of the blue wall of silence, or targeted harassment?


You've never heard of challenging a ticket?

It's real easy. I admit it involves swallowing your ego in front of your overzealous traffic cop for a bit, nodding and smiling and saying "Yes, Officer" quite a lot, no matter how much of a prick you think he is.

But then, AFTER he's no longer in your grill- with a gun, without a gun, with a flesh-colored fake penis, whatever- you check this little box on the ticket he gave you, and somewhere inside a month you get a court date. If the charges are truly that off the wall, chances are you'll never even have to do more than talk to the prosecutor.

It's expensive to try cases- even the little shiatty ones like this- so it's really in the state's best interest to outright dismiss anything that looks even the slightest bit fishy. Generally the officer who ticketed you never shows up either. He's got better things to do, other people to bluewall.


And that's how I didn't get shot... again.

/sagenod
 
2012-06-12 11:39:11 AM  

SkunkWerks: redmid17: Those trumped up charges *shouldn't* be allowed in the first place.

So, how would you suggest we remedy this? Do we need a magistrate riding shotgun in every patrol car?

Principally? Philosophically? I completely understand the objection. Pragmatically speaking, I don't think there's a solution to that. The Judicial and the Executive are separate for a reason.


A) Better training
B) Actual discipline for officers who routinely step out of line
C) Weed out the bad apples before they get hired
D) community outreach programs (harder to act like a dick to people you know)
 
2012-06-12 11:43:50 AM  

SkunkWerks: m00: So you've never heard of the blue wall of silence, or targeted harassment?

You've never heard of challenging a ticket?

It's real easy. I admit it involves swallowing your ego in front of your overzealous traffic cop for a bit, nodding and smiling and saying "Yes, Officer" quite a lot, no matter how much of a prick you think he is.

But then, AFTER he's no longer in your grill- with a gun, without a gun, with a flesh-colored fake penis, whatever- you check this little box on the ticket he gave you, and somewhere inside a month you get a court date. If the charges are truly that off the wall, chances are you'll never even have to do more than talk to the prosecutor.

It's expensive to try cases- even the little shiatty ones like this- so it's really in the state's best interest to outright dismiss anything that looks even the slightest bit fishy. Generally the officer who ticketed you never shows up either. He's got better things to do, other people to bluewall.


And that's how I didn't get shot... again.

/sagenod


1) Traffic courts almost always side with the cops, even if they are completely off-base
2) A lot of those court costs get passed onto the person filing
 
2012-06-12 11:45:29 AM  

DrippinBalls: Bottom line: dead cop? Great cop. Anyway it happens.


i.qkme.me
 
m00
2012-06-12 11:46:34 AM  

SkunkWerks: m00: So you've never heard of the blue wall of silence, or targeted harassment?

You've never heard of challenging a ticket?

It's real easy. I admit it involves swallowing your ego in front of your overzealous traffic cop for a bit, nodding and smiling and saying "Yes, Officer" quite a lot, no matter how much of a prick you think he is.

But then, AFTER he's no longer in your grill- with a gun, without a gun, with a flesh-colored fake penis, whatever- you check this little box on the ticket he gave you, and somewhere inside a month you get a court date. If the charges are truly that off the wall, chances are you'll never even have to do more than talk to the prosecutor.

It's expensive to try cases- even the little shiatty ones like this- so it's really in the state's best interest to outright dismiss anything that looks even the slightest bit fishy. Generally the officer who ticketed you never shows up either. He's got better things to do, other people to bluewall.


And that's how I didn't get shot... again.

/sagenod


My point is that the bad cops are like dangerous wild animals. They're lions, we're zebras. I don't see contesting tickets as the remedy. When a cop threatens to shoot you for driving 50 feet or whatever and pulling into a parkinglot, it doesn't matter if it's just bluster. Maybe next time he makes good on the threat. How do you contest that?
 
2012-06-12 11:46:47 AM  

Silly Jesus: Do you know the number of people who actually think that they were RIGHTFULLY arrested?


Silly Jesus: Fun fact: Most people in prison / jail don't think that they deserve to be there or that they did anything wrong.


These are both falsehoods. Despite what they may say or do, People who get arrested and thrown in prison know they deserve to be there, even if they don't say so. True there are a lot of false convictions, but overwhelmingly arrests and convictions are righteous for the most part, and the perps know it.
 
2012-06-12 11:47:22 AM  

redmid17: A) Better training


I think this is a good rule of thumb in any case, though I don't think it necessarily solves the problem of a cop who happens to have the personality of a stormtrooper...

redmid17: B) Actual discipline for officers who routinely step out of line


We're still talking about charges, right? Because again, debating their validity is what the Courts are for.

redmid17: C) Weed out the bad apples before they get hired


No interview process is perfect. There is, I am certain, room for improvement, but there's no way you can find absolutely every bad apple. There are, again, other contingencies already in place for this. And while they are, sadly, often in effect after the fact, we do live in a society that values the notion of innocent until proven guilty, and that is a blade that cuts on both edges.

You don't like cops that harass you because they think you're a bad apple, yet you seem to be suggesting we subject them to this kind of standard.

redmid17: D) community outreach programs (harder to act like a dick to people you know)


This, I agree, is a very solid suggestion. With the proviso of course that, most city politics being what they are, programs like this will be the first to be on the chopping block when someone is whinging about the budget, sadly.
 
2012-06-12 11:47:35 AM  

SkunkWerks: getting charged and getting convicted are two very different things


www.morethings.com
 
2012-06-12 11:49:18 AM  

SkunkWerks: m00: So you've never heard of the blue wall of silence, or targeted harassment?

You've never heard of challenging a ticket?

It's real easy. I admit it involves swallowing your ego in front of your overzealous traffic cop for a bit, nodding and smiling and saying "Yes, Officer" quite a lot, no matter how much of a prick you think he is.

But then, AFTER he's no longer in your grill- with a gun, without a gun, with a flesh-colored fake penis, whatever- you check this little box on the ticket he gave you, and somewhere inside a month you get a court date. If the charges are truly that off the wall, chances are you'll never even have to do more than talk to the prosecutor.

It's expensive to try cases- even the little shiatty ones like this- so it's really in the state's best interest to outright dismiss anything that looks even the slightest bit fishy. Generally the officer who ticketed you never shows up either. He's got better things to do, other people to bluewall.


And that's how I didn't get shot... again.

/sagenod


you know how...meh never mind. You keep on believing that, sparkles.
 
2012-06-12 11:50:29 AM  
Silly Jesus: Do you know the number of people who actually think that they were RIGHTFULLY arrested?

Silly Jesus: Fun fact: Most people in prison / jail don't think that they deserve to be there or that they did anything wrong.


Another example of Moron on Fark! Enjoy.
 
2012-06-12 11:52:30 AM  

redmid17: 1) Traffic courts almost always side with the cops, even if they are completely off-base


imgs.xkcd.com

Certainly hasn't been my own experience, but I imagine you'll just say I'm "lucky". Meh.

redmid17: 2) A lot of those court costs get passed onto the person filing


Considering that the last time I did this, I even dodged the 50 cents or so in "service charges" for invoking the FOIA because the state was jerking me around, I think that's another job for

imgs.xkcd.com

And probably another retort of "you're just lucky, is all". Did I get that right?
 
2012-06-12 11:53:22 AM  

Madbassist1: Silly Jesus: Do you know the number of people who actually think that they were RIGHTFULLY arrested?

Silly Jesus: Fun fact: Most people in prison / jail don't think that they deserve to be there or that they did anything wrong.

These are both falsehoods. Despite what they may say or do, People who get arrested and thrown in prison know they deserve to be there, even if they don't say so. True there are a lot of false convictions, but overwhelmingly arrests and convictions are righteous for the most part, and the perps know it.


Self righteous indignation is an awfully powerful force though...

People in the situations that we are discussing aren't acting on their deep contemplative thoughts.
 
2012-06-12 11:54:13 AM  

Madbassist1: you know how...meh never mind. You keep on believing that, sparkles.


Thanks! I will. The great upshot of it is of course that it's been easy to believe, cause, yanno, I lived it.

Toodles.
 
2012-06-12 11:55:34 AM  

DrippinBalls: Silly Jesus: Do you know the number of people who actually think that they were RIGHTFULLY arrested?

Silly Jesus: Fun fact: Most people in prison / jail don't think that they deserve to be there or that they did anything wrong.

Another example of Moron on Fark! Enjoy.


Please don't beat me up...
 
2012-06-12 11:57:57 AM  
Everyone seems to have jumped into talking about no-knock warrants even that that isn't really what the law, or the incident that inspired it, are about. This law makes it lawful to resist police when they do something illegal (which is already true in most places.) In cases like the incident in the article you can legally bar police from entering your home unless they present a warrant or have probable cause. The only reason this law was made was because some dumb judge said that you had to submit to police even if they didn't have the right to enter your home.
 
2012-06-12 12:06:22 PM  

m00: How do you contest that?


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say we're not talking about the same things.

The question I'm answering is: How do I beat an artificially-trumped up or undeserved charge?

The question you're asking is: How do I dodge a bullet?

As I am not The One, I don't feel terribly qualified to answer your question, even in bullet-time. However, I do think I accomplished answering the question I set out to answer.
 
2012-06-12 12:08:53 PM  

SkunkWerks: redmid17: 1) Traffic courts almost always side with the cops, even if they are completely off-base

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

Certainly hasn't been my own experience, but I imagine you'll just say I'm "lucky". Meh.

redmid17: 2) A lot of those court costs get passed onto the person filing

Considering that the last time I did this, I even dodged the 50 cents or so in "service charges" for invoking the FOIA because the state was jerking me around, I think that's another job for

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

And probably another retort of "you're just lucky, is all". Did I get that right?


1) Myself along with several friends have gotten absolutely nailed with ridiculous charges (my favorite was a seat belt violation when just about every exemption applied to the vehicle I was traveling in). YMMV depending on where you are. However when

2) Mass charges a $25 fee to challenge a ticket to a clerk. $50 to appeal to a judge. Case went all the way to state supreme court. That fee is win or lose
 
2012-06-12 12:09:26 PM  

odinsposse: The only reason this law was made was because some dumb judge said that you had to submit to police even if they didn't have the right to enter your home.


...because even though not ideal, it's better to sort out such disagreements in court, rather than in the front yard with tasers and guns.

I find that to be a perfectly reasonable way to handle a lose-lose situation.
 
2012-06-12 12:17:29 PM  

SkunkWerks: redmid17: A) Better training

I think this is a good rule of thumb in any case, though I don't think it necessarily solves the problem of a cop who happens to have the personality of a stormtrooper...

redmid17: B) Actual discipline for officers who routinely step out of line

We're still talking about charges, right? Because again, debating their validity is what the Courts are for.

redmid17: C) Weed out the bad apples before they get hired

No interview process is perfect. There is, I am certain, room for improvement, but there's no way you can find absolutely every bad apple. There are, again, other contingencies already in place for this. And while they are, sadly, often in effect after the fact, we do live in a society that values the notion of innocent until proven guilty, and that is a blade that cuts on both edges.

You don't like cops that harass you because they think you're a bad apple, yet you seem to be suggesting we subject them to this kind of standard.

redmid17: D) community outreach programs (harder to act like a dick to people you know)

This, I agree, is a very solid suggestion. With the proviso of course that, most city politics being what they are, programs like this will be the first to be on the chopping block when someone is whinging about the budget, sadly.


A) we agree on training
B) I'm not necessarily talking specifically about charges, but when cops can routinely abuse their power in any number of ways and only receive a paid vacation. When it takes 3 years to get around firing someone for something like this, you have to admit there is an issue. There is a reason that police unions are roundly against overhauling current, widespread disciplinary methods.
C) I'm a college educated, middle-class white guy. I don't even get 2nd glances from cops unless I specifically ask them a question. I'm not quite sure why you're equating being in public with hiring practices though.
D) Very sad but very true
 
2012-06-12 12:21:39 PM  

redmid17: YMMV depending on where you are.


I think that's the key bit in this. Particularly those first four letters.

As to where I am, well, it's funny you should mention it...

redmid17: 2) Mass charges a $25 fee


If that means Massachusetts, not all that far away from you, as it turns out: Connecticut.

And in my case- even though I didn't end up paying squat- I'd have gladly payed $25 or even $75 to dismiss a $500 ticket. I still come out on top. Moreso if there'd been jail time involved- there wasn't.

Considering I actually ran head-on into a Construction site to incur all this, I'm going to say I came out of this very much smelling like roses, and leave it at that.

I'd love to tell you how I got all that dismissed, but it's not necessarily relevant to the subject matter, and is a whole other CSB, interesting, but still irrelevant.
 
2012-06-12 12:22:08 PM  
A step in the right direction and oh by the way officers if you decide to illegally enter somebodies house and get in to a shoot out with them I do hope the legal system remembers to apply the same standards to you that they apply to everyone...

Be sure and look up what happens to a person and the people with him if somebody dies while committing a crime.
 
2012-06-12 12:31:22 PM  

redmid17: C) I'm a college educated, middle-class white guy.


Again, we've a lot in common then.

redmid17: I'm not quite sure why you're equating being in public with hiring practices though.


Because it didn't stop my Stormtrooper from literally getting right in my grill, shouting at me in a barely coherent fashion, and generally treating me as if I'd just murdered someone (I didn't).

Know what warranted all that fire and brimstone (aside from the obvious "I just ran my car head-on into a construction site")?

I didn't have a current insurance card on me.*

*I did, however, have current insurance.
 
2012-06-12 12:59:44 PM  

redmid17: SkunkWerks: redmid17: Those trumped up charges *shouldn't* be allowed in the first place.

So, how would you suggest we remedy this? Do we need a magistrate riding shotgun in every patrol car?

Principally? Philosophically? I completely understand the objection. Pragmatically speaking, I don't think there's a solution to that. The Judicial and the Executive are separate for a reason.

A) Better training
B) Actual discipline for officers who routinely step out of line
C) Weed out the bad apples before they get hired
D) community outreach programs (harder to act like a dick to people you know)




Hey fark you too, pal
 
2012-06-12 01:10:03 PM  

SkunkWerks: Madbassist1: you know how...meh never mind. You keep on believing that, sparkles.

Thanks! I will. The great upshot of it is of course that it's been easy to believe, cause, yanno, I lived it.

Toodles.


Hey I'm not saying that you cant defend (and win) in court, cause I have myself a few times, but TRAFFIC COURT? highly unlikely. Perhaps you could share these tales of you socking it to the man?
 
2012-06-12 01:20:55 PM  

SkunkWerks: There were two types of forms in 2000, one was a four page form that was basically minor details- who lives with you? are they employed? do they own a car?
...
Fun fact: the Census (and by implication, the federal government's right to conduct it) has been part of the constitution more or less since it was written. That bit about "no taxation without representation"? Yeah, you have to know how many people there are in your country to make sure they're being represented.


Does their representation rest on whether or not they are employed? Or own a car?? Your "no taxation without representation" argument might (might) justify a simple headcount, but nothing more.
 
2012-06-12 01:42:54 PM  

SkunkWerks: I'd have gladly payed $25 or even $75 to dismiss a $500 ticket. I still come out on top.


I demand you pay me $1000!

Of course, I'll accept just $100 as an 'administrative fee'. You'll pay it, right? After all, you "still come out on top", Right?
 
2012-06-12 01:51:48 PM  

Madbassist1: Perhaps you could share these tales of you socking it to the man?


Like I said, whole other CSB, happy to share though. The long and short of it is I ran head-on into a well-marked construction site right in my home town, barely even applied my brakes. In most cases, yeah, you'd be screwed, and indeed, at the time, I was pretty certain I was.

The officer on the scene was pretty obviously trying to antagonize me- or at the very least, scare the bejesus out of me. He stopped just short of laying hands on me (within inches of me, in my space, in my face, turning bright red from all the yelling- I shiat you not). I was one zen mofo though, and I just did as I mentioned. Nod a lot, pepper it liberally with "Yes officer," and "I understand, officer in a placid, compliant tone.

He knew he couldn't touch me, but he was laying it on thick in the hopes I'd give him an excuse. I didn't.

I'd hit a car that was parked right in front of the site, awaiting the flag guy to wave her on. Decent sized car, green sedan, as I recall, bigger than my car- A Honda Civic which was almost undamaged by the hit that had crumpled her gas tank. I think I had a few scratches on the hood. Apparently I went up under her car, like a wedge.

Anydangway, at the time I hit her, I was attempting to apply my brakes, but it was way too late. Couldn't stop in time. This was mostly because of what I'd been trying to clear off my windshield shortly before I realized it was too late to stop, yet tried like mad anyway.

The substance was a mixture of tar and horse manure. And it was stuck damn fast to my windshield. I admit, I might have been a little preoccupied at the time, but most of that was trying to get this shiat off my windshield so I could see. I did, in fact, see the construction signs, but I'd already passed through the site several times earlier that week at this time and the signs were up, yet there was NO construction. This was the first day I'd be wrong to make that assumption.

The substance itself was pretty unique. And if it didn't have a lot to do with what the construction crew was doing there that day, I might have been completely hosed. It was a crack-sealing operation- something the CT DOT was in the habit of doing pretty religiously every couple years or so. It's a preventative maintenance against water seeping through, then under the road surface, eroding the ground beneath it and instigating pot holes.

The "unique" part of this is when they do these operations, they normally pack the hot-patch tar with gravel, to prevent the still-not-fully hardened tar from sticking to vehicles that would, inevitably, have to drive over it before it was fully set. But this other substance in the mixture wasn't gravel. It was a mixture of molasses and mulch. Molasses is sticky enough on it's own. try mixing it with road tar. Now have fun getting it off your car.

I got curious after the accident, and as you've got a lot of time to challenge a ticket (which was nearly $500 by the time Officer Dredd was done ramping it up) I spent my time wisely. This was where a Freedom of Information Act request comes in handy. I submitted one to three state departments, of those three only the DOT and the DEP responded within the letter of the law, however begrudgingly. The third came in late (and this is where I dodged the "fees" associated with printing and sending documents like this - they were in violation of the FOIA by stalling me, and they knew it).

What I requested were complaint records and details on the operation itself. What I found out is that there were a LOT of complaints regarding this specific iteration of the operation- the one in my town. Not only were there many in with the DOT from people complaining that they had a nigh-unremovable substance stuck to their pretty new cars after having passed through the site, there were also some very interesting complaints issued to the DEP about roadside wells.

Horse manure, it turns out, is a bio hazard. There were high e.coli counts in the roadside wells in the area of the operation. It had rained during one of the days the operation was in effect, and it was one of those torrential downpours. The runoff from the roads had contaminated nearby wells, apparently. All in all I had at least a dozen complaints. And I'm not even getting to the good part.

Recall that I said gravel was used in all of these sorts of operations? Well it appeared that, of all the towns in my state, mine was the only one to get this "experimental" mixture. What's more, it's not a coincidence- or so I think.

CSB-within-a-CSB: About five years back, my town had done a "bad" thing- we sued the state DEP. Why? Well, the suit alleged that the DEP wasn't doing it's goddamned job- specifically regulating a business we had locally in town called Earth Gro. The suit was absolutely correct. The DEP had been soft on the company and had not been even checking it for violations. My little po-dunk town won the suit against the DEP. We haven't exactly been popular with the State since then.

The Horse Manure came from a place called Franklin Mushroom farms- a subsidiary of Earth Gro.

It doesn't get a whole lot more like the state's flying the finger at you when you have a state crack-sealing operation mysteriously and brazenly spreading shiat directly in front of your town hall. The fact that the shiat comes from the very company the State got it's ass handed to it over just helps ice the cake.

By the time my court date came up, I had a sizable folder of state documentation suggesting the construction site not only had no business being there, doing what it was doing, but that the state, once again, was up to no good... a LOT of no good. And it apparently seemed like vengeance for the last time it got caught with it's prick balls-deep in Earth Gro.

Handed that folder to the prosecutor, and without really even reading it's contents, he opted not to pursue the charges. He knew he was opening a Pandora's box.
 
2012-06-12 02:01:55 PM  

low_dazzle: So Stand Your Ground is cool and all when it's the Cops, but not if it's a drugged-out minority youth coming to get you.


No, stand your ground is fine when you ARE IN YOUR FREAKING HOME AND NOT HUNTING YOUTH AROUND A NEIGHBORHOOD.


Jesus, you guys are farking morons sometimes.
 
2012-06-12 02:02:23 PM  
As a liberal Hoosier who disagrees with the NRA on several counts, I fully support this legislation.
 
2012-06-12 02:05:50 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: If they aren't doing anything wrong, they shouldn't have anything to fear.


If they aren't doing anything wrong, they shouldn't have to fear arbitrary and capricious stupidity causing their untimely and unjustified death.

I'm not picking on you personally, I'm refuting the stupid remark you parroted from another WRONG person.
 
2012-06-12 02:07:31 PM  

fredklein: Does their representation rest on whether or not they are employed? Or own a car?? Your "no taxation without representation" argument might (might) justify a simple headcount, but nothing more.


Not my argument. Uncle Sam's.

Take it up with him. Either way, the law says you have to, and there's no legal precedent set for refusing to comply.

Want to set one? Be my guest. As I said, even I agree that the 60 page form was completely barmy. The defense of that rests primarily on the notion that the Census also produces statistical data. You read about it a lot in articles here on Fark, and if you've ever wondered where that Census data comes from, well, yeah...

The data is supposed to be just used as numbers- with the names stripped from it, solely for statistical interest. I admit that's trusting an awful lot to Uncle Sam, but in truth, the IRS has probably a good deal more than that about you in it's files anyway.

Of course begging the question of: why doesn't the Census just ask the IRS?

The answer to this is, of course: if the Census asked for IRS data, the IRS would be asking for Census data, giving a lot of people very good reason not to answer honestly. Kinda defeats the purpose of collecting accurate data.
 
2012-06-12 02:23:38 PM  

Cyno01: The way i see it... the constitution is our highest law. Armed civilian breaking into a house, burglary, tresspassing, whole host of other things probably...

Cop illegally entering a house, either with the wrong address or just not caring, theyre guilty of all of the above AND in violation of the constitution. Which is much much worse IMHO anyway...


Exactly. The idea that the penalty should be limited to throwing out a case against a defendant is nuts.
 
2012-06-12 02:38:32 PM  

SkunkWerks: Madbassist1: Perhaps you could share these tales of you socking it to the man?

Like I said, whole other CSB, happy to share though. The long and short of it is I ran head-on into a well-marked construction site right in my home town, barely even applied my brakes. In most cases, yeah, you'd be screwed, and indeed, at the time, I was pretty certain I was.

The officer on the scene was pretty obviously trying to antagonize me- or at the very least, scare the bejesus out of me. He stopped just short of laying hands on me (within inches of me, in my space, in my face, turning bright red from all the yelling- I shiat you not). I was one zen mofo though, and I just did as I mentioned. Nod a lot, pepper it liberally with "Yes officer," and "I understand, officer in a placid, compliant tone.

He knew he couldn't touch me, but he was laying it on thick in the hopes I'd give him an excuse. I didn't.

I'd hit a car that was parked right in front of the site, awaiting the flag guy to wave her on. Decent sized car, green sedan, as I recall, bigger than my car- A Honda Civic which was almost undamaged by the hit that had crumpled her gas tank. I think I had a few scratches on the hood. Apparently I went up under her car, like a wedge.

Anydangway, at the time I hit her, I was attempting to apply my brakes, but it was way too late. Couldn't stop in time. This was mostly because of what I'd been trying to clear off my windshield shortly before I realized it was too late to stop, yet tried like mad anyway.

The substance was a mixture of tar and horse manure. And it was stuck damn fast to my windshield. I admit, I might have been a little preoccupied at the time, but most of that was trying to get this shiat off my windshield so I could see. I did, in fact, see the construction signs, but I'd already passed through the site several times earlier that week at this time and the signs were up, yet there was NO construction. This was the first day I'd be wrong to make tha ...


I have a different theory...

Walking into traffic court with a manilla folder full of pretty much anything will get the prosecutor to pass you up. You could have had random newspaper clippings in there, or coupons, or blank sheets of paper. All that matters is that you're "that guy." The crazy person who has assembled a dossier for a trial in a court that rarely is handling anything where that much documentation could possibly be relevant or necessary. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but it's a pretty good rule to live by.

An example that I happened to personally witness: This guy is in court for running a stop sign, which was caught on a dash camera, and the guy all but admitted to doing it. Well, he brought in about 45 full size color photographs of the intersection with angles drawn all over them accompanied by various "studies" that he'd probably found on the internet about how the angle of the camera messed with the perspective blah blah blah. Also, he was a first year law student, which probably had a lot to do with his ass-hattery. Anyway, after the judge kept cutting him off during his attempted readings of irrelevant studies, and his repeated attempts to have her analyze the photographs, she doubled the fine that he was facing and tacked on probation until he completed community service (or something similar / I don't remember the exact punishment, but it was more than a fine and the fine was more than it originally would have been).

I'm not saying that your case was like this one, or that you're an ass-hat, but that you're "that guy" to the prosecutor, whether you're as crazy as the one I saw or not. Just not worth the effort / irritation / waste of time.
 
2012-06-12 02:48:09 PM  

Silly Jesus: I have a different theory...


Oh, believe me, the value of this notion- that few people rarely prepare to the degree I did, or are rarely that thorough- isn't lost on me at all, even in this case.

But then again, it isn't common for a person to keep their cool when they've got the not altogether unrealistic feeling that they are screwed, blued and tattooed, AND they've got a roid-raging officer of the law screaming bloody murder in their face over it- all but daring me to slug him one.

My cousin got into one of these situations. It didn't turn out well for him. He spent a night in the clink with a sore and bleeding head over it.


Again, patience, curiosity, calm. It really does pay off. And that's rather the point here. In court, you've got a whole other milieu to fight back, in a calm and concerted environment where- with even a little preparation- the odds are decidedly in your favor.

If you try and hash this out at the scene, well, you're now on the Officer's turf. He makes the rules, and if you're unfortunate enough to be a person who gives into antagonism, well, yes, it won't end well for you.

Silly Jesus: Well, he brought in about 45 full size color photographs of the intersection with angles drawn all over them accompanied by various "studies" that he'd probably found on the internet about how the angle of the camera messed with the perspective blah blah blah.


Did he just come from Alice's Restaurant, perchance?
 
Displayed 50 of 312 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report