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.

(Courthouse News Service)   Refusing to let the police use your home as a lookout? That's a smashed open door and assault and arresting and jailing and some looting by the police while you are away   (courthousenews.com) divider line 372
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

14045 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2013 at 5:03 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-04 05:52:33 PM

theknuckler_33: This happened two YEARS ago and they just filed a complain this week?


This has probably been through arbitration and attempting a civil settlement for the past two years, if I had to guess. City attorneys want something like this to go away quietly. Good for them not doing so.
 
2013-07-04 05:52:55 PM

hardinparamedic: Slappajo: One (a police officer) has essential immunity from prosecution.

Yeah. That's not exactly true. (Link is from VA, but yeah.)

There's an ex-cop in Memphis right now who's on trial for two counts of Vehicular Homicide in direct violation of that claim.

Slappajo: The others are rednecks and you can shoot them at will.

Yeah, for a second degree murder charge.


Are you really going to argue that cops who misbehave are subject to the same standards as the rest of us? That was my point with the first point. The second was snark.
 
2013-07-04 05:53:13 PM
Paid Administrative Leave for EVERYONE!!!!
 
2013-07-04 05:53:46 PM

darkmayo: So is there any other links to this story that don't just refer back to this article? Incident happened in 2011.


I found this:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/151769636/Mitchell-v-City-of-Henderson-et- al -Complaint

I haven't read all of it yet, and it looks like a lot is redacted or something. Anywho, there yas go
 
2013-07-04 05:55:21 PM

Lady Indica: namatad: OgreMagi: The law needs to be changed so that when a cop (or anyone in a position of authority) blatantly and knowingly breaks the law, they can be held personally liable and their pension is not immune.  Let's see how quickly the cops start paying attention to the Constitution when that happens.

/Yes, I know, never going to happen.

THIS would solve so many problems.

You know what solves a lot of problems? Requiring cams and recording equipment. Good cops have NOTHING to fear from it.

Interesting how many departments fought tooth and nail against it, and how many still do NOT utilize a tool which can ONLY protect good cops, and help assure convictions.

If you have to go outside the law to do your job, to work the grey areas to dispense justice...you're one of the bad guys and fark you.


MHMM
and yet, study after study has shown that dashboard cams and similar reduce the number of lawsuits against the police and cities, reducing costs to taxpayers.

along with reducing police misconduct.
OF course the police would be against this.
 
2013-07-04 05:56:32 PM
All the news is JUST coming out because the case was just seen on June 30th.
 
2013-07-04 05:57:02 PM
Cops serve and protect each other and whoever the chief tells them is paid in full for a "MONEY.  HANDS OFF" pass.  We're just the meat in a street gang control war sandwich and whoever wins, we're just gonna have to carry on keeping our heads down and staring at our feet lest we end up on the ass end of a substance addled thug beatdown.

America as the fairy tale we were sold is over.  The  melting pot didn't, the fragmented culture serves the wealthy and keeps us barking sh*t at each other while they rifle the joint and the cops are the bouncers.  The gangstah boyees just skim the crumbs and keep us thinking the cops are on or team.

We have no team.  We're biomass.  We're the pockets they pick to replace what they steal.  We're revenue farms.  We're chattel that got too uppity.

And the only comfort is knowing that when the other shoe drops and the joint is busted out like a mobster bar, and the getaway car is being dropped into D, that the goon squad who were totally convinced that they had a seat in it are gonna be sitting on the curb next to us, surveying the decimation and saying "well, that didn't work out."
 
2013-07-04 05:57:27 PM

Slappajo: Are you really going to argue that cops who misbehave are subject to the same standards as the rest of us?


I'm pointing out that they're not as immune as people seem to think they are to criminal, or civil remedies, quite frankly. Nothing more or less. Don't put words in my mouth.

The fact of the matter is that nationwide, policing is dirty enough that it should be regulated in a far, far different manner than it is now. Something like the UK has ideally.
 
2013-07-04 05:57:46 PM
As someone who has done nothing wrong, I am so much more frightened of our police than I am of either drug dealers or terrorists.
 
2013-07-04 05:58:06 PM
Am I the only one smelling a coup? And it's not the OWS guys who are gonna do it. . . .

/this is starting to look a lot like Egypt. . . .
 
2013-07-04 05:58:40 PM

lack of warmth: I don't think it mattered much by then, since the crooks would've changed locations after all that commotion going on


It was sold as a domestic violence stakeout.  ( Beats me, apparently this is normal?)  No actual criminals were involved other than the cops.
 
2013-07-04 05:58:52 PM

hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.


First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third:  You got it right.  (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth:  Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army.   Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?
 
2013-07-04 06:00:12 PM

hardinparamedic: Slappajo: Are you really going to argue that cops who misbehave are subject to the same standards as the rest of us?

I'm pointing out that they're not as immune as people seem to think they are to criminal, or civil remedies, quite frankly. Nothing more or less. Don't put words in my mouth.

The fact of the matter is that nationwide, policing is dirty enough that it should be regulated in a far, far different manner than it is now. Something like the UK has ideally.


Many cities have civilian oversight boards.  They are usually packed with friends of cops, retired cops, and political cronies or they have absolutely no power to do anything other than to make a recommendation, which will be ignored.
 
2013-07-04 06:00:38 PM

LL316: halB: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.

There are very, very, very few ways to sue the police.  You think THIS is bad?  I find the fact that it's almost impossible to sue the police to be worse.

Interesting that you find it almost impossible to sue the police when replying about an article where someone is, you guessed it, suing the police.



If I wanted to waste 500 dollars I could sue you for being a meanie to me.  And that will still get dismissed.

You don't sound like someone who knows that much about the legal system.
 
2013-07-04 06:01:27 PM

farkitecht: As someone who has done nothing wrong, I am so much more frightened of our police than I am of either drug dealers or terrorists.


THIS

I'm done
 
2013-07-04 06:02:58 PM

Peki: Am I the only one smelling a coup? And it's not the OWS guys who are gonna do it. . . .

/this is starting to look a lot like Egypt. . . .


How do you suppose that a multinational cavalcade of revolution inspiring shenanigans managed to start going on all at once?
 
2013-07-04 06:03:01 PM
Right off the bat it looks like violations of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments.

Not to mention things like assault and battery, animal abuse, oppression, etc

abhorrent1: Holy shiat. What would have happened if he shot one of them?

/cause he should have.


My guess is that they would have shot him and anyone else who was in his house, planted drugs on him, called him a drug dealer, and taken his house and car.  He wouldn't ever see a courtroom, they would kill him then and "confiscate" any possessions they felt were worth having.

Fluid: The Third Amendment says "no soldier" rather than "no policeman", though.


It does.  But I find it hard to believe that there are any cases where the government can just kick you out of your house and use it for their own without violating the constitution.  If the local mayor told you "I like your house, get out, I'm taking it", I'm pretty sure you aren't SOL, despite the fact that he's a mayor, not a solider.

These days, the cops have all the same gear that soldiers do, so it's a very fine line.

Even if it doesn't violate the 3rd, there are still quite a few illegal activities and a couple of other breaches of the constitution, assuming the story in this article is reasonably accurate.
 
2013-07-04 06:03:45 PM
From the doc I posted, "All criminal charges against Plaintiffs were ultimately dismissed with prejudice."

Good. So the hammer is pointed solely on the cops now.
 
2013-07-04 06:06:21 PM

FARK rebel soldier: theknuckler_33: This happened two YEARS ago and they just filed a complain this week?

And all the news stories are coming out within the last few hours.


Putting together a case is hard and time consuming.
 
2013-07-04 06:06:40 PM

OgreMagi: Many cities have civilian oversight boards.  They are usually packed with friends of cops, retired cops, and political cronies or they have absolutely no power to do anything other than to make a recommendation, which will be ignored.


Which is why there needs to be a State or Federal-level agency like the UK has. Like I said before, State level licensure and professional credentialing.

halB: If I wanted to waste 500 dollars I could sue you for being a meanie to me.  And that will still get dismissed.

You don't sound like someone who knows that much about the legal system.


You really don't, either. Chances are, the reason we didn't hear about this sooner is because it was going through civil negotiations and an attempt from the city to settle. You don't hear about a LOT of cases of police misconduct on the civil side because it's far cheaper for them to write checks outright below the level of their liability insurance coverage than it is for them to fight.

eventhelosers: First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.


Setting there at a special event isn't exactly what I'd call intimidating. Especially when the only thing it can do is honk at me. Angrily. No offense or snark meant by this comment, totally serious with this.

eventhelosers: Fourth:  Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army.   Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?


There are entire libraries written about what is wrong with the grant system in the United States for HS/Emergency Services. Namely, the "use it or lose it and get less next time" mentality.
 
2013-07-04 06:07:25 PM

Lady Indica: The_Gallant_Gallstone: A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.

What if they obeyed... under protest?

"I was only following orders" historically isn't exactly the best defense, but it tends to work pretty much only if the person is new, or lowest on the totem pole. They may believe they have no other options. Someone with rank or experience, they know they have other options.

So it seems to me anyway, I'm hardly expert in such.


That works okay in time of war, specifically regarding military personnel. The penalties they face for deliberately failing to follow orders can be steep.

As pointed out in this thread, cops are civilians. What's the worst that could happen to an objector? A black mark? Unpaid leave? Termination?

Any of those are better options than participating in abject idiocy and thuggery such as we are discussing.
 
2013-07-04 06:07:57 PM

Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.


This is what's wrong with America.

If even a fraction of this story is true, all the cops involved should be hung or at least branded on the arm as blacklisted and left unemployable with a scar you can't hide.

At the very least, they should go to jail and enjoy all the comfort of having to break large rocks into pea gravel for a few years then be released blacklisted and unemployable with a record in the system.

At the barest minimum, any lawsuit should come out of their personal assets directly. Paycheck, saving, and pensions.
 
2013-07-04 06:08:11 PM

bunner: How do you suppose that a multinational cavalcade of revolution inspiring shenanigans managed to start going on all at once?


Oh, I've been making the connections.

/I don't think 2014 is going to be a good year. . .
 
2013-07-04 06:10:29 PM

Peki: bunner: How do you suppose that a multinational cavalcade of revolution inspiring shenanigans managed to start going on all at once?

Oh, I've been making the connections.

/I don't think 2014 is going to be a good year. . .


Not if the people who are finally closing out a 250 year global business plan can help it.
 
2013-07-04 06:11:23 PM

boozel: From the doc I posted, "All criminal charges against Plaintiffs were ultimately dismissed with prejudice."

Good. So the hammer is pointed solely on the cops now.


It doesn't say where the prejudice is focused.  I figured that these charges were dismissed, but the family was now the biggest legal enemy of the police department with the makes, models, colors and license plates of their cars recorded on the police database.  If they are going just one mile over, stop them, search them and ticket them for everything possible.  If someone breaks into their home, ignore the 911 call.  If their neighbor's house is broken into, they become the first suspects.  etc...
 
2013-07-04 06:12:08 PM

TopoGigo: hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd

No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.

Any judge who holds an original intent doctrine would say this violates the third. In fact, I'd guess the SCOUS would rule 6-3 against, depending on Scalia's mood.


No, SCOTUS would vote 9-0 on this one.  No warrant = no access, no exceptions.  SCOTUS has already said that no-knock-no-warrant entry of homes is a form of assisted suicide and homeowners cannot be prosecuted for defending their property.
If you're in an apartment you're screwed tho.
 
2013-07-04 06:12:16 PM
Homeowner's first phone calls after the cops made their demand should have been to the local TV news and newspaper: "The cops are coming over to seize my house because I won't let them use it for a sniper position on the house next door!"
And I would have set up as many hidden recording devices as I could arrange in the time left before the cops showed up.  I would get them on the record responding to my question about what was their probable cause and where was their warrant. At that point they would probably try to bullshiat me.  I would get on record as saying that they are intimidating me out of my home by force of arms and that I intend to pursue all my legal options when the current crisis is over. Then I'd evacuate and go find the reporters and a lawyer. I don't know that this would prevent them from giving me a "tune-up" and fake arrest on general principle anyhow, but I'd have  built my case for the eventual lawsuit.
 
2013-07-04 06:13:02 PM
eventhelosers:   Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

??? Refusing to let the cops in your house does NOT make you an ahole.
 
2013-07-04 06:13:51 PM
If that story is even remotely accurate I hope that the guy collects about $10 million from that police department and that all of the cops involved lose their jobs.
 
2013-07-04 06:14:22 PM

namatad: Lady Indica: namatad: OgreMagi: The law needs to be changed so that when a cop (or anyone in a position of authority) blatantly and knowingly breaks the law, they can be held personally liable and their pension is not immune.  Let's see how quickly the cops start paying attention to the Constitution when that happens.

/Yes, I know, never going to happen.

THIS would solve so many problems.

You know what solves a lot of problems? Requiring cams and recording equipment. Good cops have NOTHING to fear from it.

Interesting how many departments fought tooth and nail against it, and how many still do NOT utilize a tool which can ONLY protect good cops, and help assure convictions.

If you have to go outside the law to do your job, to work the grey areas to dispense justice...you're one of the bad guys and fark you.

MHMM
and yet, study after study has shown that dashboard cams and similar reduce the number of lawsuits against the police and cities, reducing costs to taxpayers.

along with reducing police misconduct.
OF course the police would be against this.


The initial fear (and this was even with good cops) is that a lot of their shiat looks bad, but is legal. They were afraid that the public (stupid & cop hating public) would not understand what they were seeing and just be all 'oh see the cop was rough and mean, GIVE THEM TEH MONIES'.

Reality is, people are pretty farking reasonable, and it surprises even me how often people are on the side of the police when they see someone pepper sprayed and roughly taken down for non compliance. People aren't that farking stupid, and they can easily see through someone being a mouthy coont and refusing to comply...to cops raging on someone and beating the shiat out of them for no reason.

Once the data came out (fewer lawsuits, better defense, less probs) it was adopted a lot of places. And it's STILL bitterly fought by many unions and cities. That some still bitterly fight it, should tell you a lot. Also ANY tampering with such devices should carry a really serious criminal penalty.

That all being said, I know cops who years before this was possible, carried personal tape recorders on them. I know of more than one who was literally saved by having this, when people filed false complaints against them. One CHP officer I know had a complaint and lawsuit filed against him by a woman he gave two speeding tickets to. She tried to get out of it on looks, and recognized him as a customer in the grocery store he went to. Didn't work, she got the ticket. Second time she propositioned him. He refused, gave her the ticket. She had done it in such a way that he wasn't obligated to file bribery shiat, but he told her she was crossing the line.

Anyhoo, she tried to get him fired. Caused an investigation, and initially filed a lawsuit. She claimed he'd asked her out repeatedly, even stalking her at her grocery store!!! And when she refused his attention, he started stalking her on the highway! It almost sounds believable too, and in the 80s when people were kneejerking on this type of sexual abuse, he'd have been farked. It looked bad.

But he carried a personal recording device, because he personally knew other cops who'd had their asses saved by it. And he stockpiled tapes for six months or some crazy amount of shiat before recycling. Anyway, he had it all on tape, and it saved his ass.

He was then able to file a civil suit against her, and won a $10k (max at the time) judgment. I don't believe he ever collected a penny on it, was more the principle of it.

Sadly, she did not face any criminal charges.

Anyhoo my entire point to this clearly fascinating and entertaining tale ;) is that most cops have heard a similar story. I can't even THINK of a story I've ever heard from any cop (and I know a lot of them in many depts through family) that ever had 'and the recording/video damned the good cop'. Not once.

They should be under constant video and audio. No reason for them not to be. Safer for them, and safer for us and better for adjudicating justice.

Can't think of any good reason not to, unless you're a scumbag who doesn't want to get caught with their hand in the till. Or farking groupies on patrol. Or roughing up people while using racist epitaphs.
 
2013-07-04 06:15:15 PM

bunner: lack of warmth: I don't think it mattered much by then, since the crooks would've changed locations after all that commotion going on

It was sold as a domestic violence stakeout.  ( Beats me, apparently this is normal?)  No actual criminals were involved other than the cops.


Considering there is reference to an incident command post, it sounds like there was an active situation going on with a barricaded suspect.  Why it was so important to get into THIS guys home?  Vantage point for marksmen maybe?
 
2013-07-04 06:15:59 PM

bunner: A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.

But zey were only follovink orderrs.

[www.addictinginfo.org image 524x516]

Godwin's pithy remark is not actually a law.  It was a pithy remark.  Deal.


Amusingly those are American school kids, probably reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
2013-07-04 06:16:13 PM
hardinparamedic:

eventhelosers: First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Setting there at a special event isn't exactly what I'd call intimidating. Especially when the only thing it can do is honk at me. Angrily. No offense or snark meant by this comment, totally serious with this.


Actually they were just cruising with it to an event, and happened to "detour" past occupy tampa.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/video/are-tampa-police-using-tanks-to -t hreaten-protesters/1288919884001

Read about the new rules of protesting in Wisconsin.  Think big picture, or fall in line as you wish.  By the time many are alarmed it may just be too late, or I may be a nutjob, but I would like to be a nutjob with the right to protest, and without local cops being able to outgun the detachment I served in.
 
2013-07-04 06:16:17 PM

Ima4nic8or: If that story is even remotely accurate I hope that the guy collects about $10 million from that police department and that all of the cops involved lose their jobs.


Difficulty.  He'll still live in a country full of fake LEO just like these clowns only with a bullseye on his shirt and a tidy bit of potential revenue to harvest in his bank.
 
2013-07-04 06:16:39 PM
If I did my job as badly as those cops, I'd be fired and denied unemployment benefits and might never work again.

However, it's very interesting that the cops documented their plans in writing, which will surely be their undoing. Now, I strongly suspect that there's some hyperbole in that complaint (the tip-off is how they go to great lengths to describe how the poor dog was treated), but even if it's only partly true, the fact that the cops noted their plan to remove him, forcibly if needed, from his house in order to do their jobs, well, that's pretty much a cut-and-dried slam dunk. No court will rule that the police have no culpability there.

I also find it interesting that the individual officers are named as defendants, in addition to the police force itself and their superior officers. While I don't know the logistics of whether it will stick or if they'll simply fall under the umbrella of the department as government employees, at the very least these officers now have to hire their own lawyers to sort the mess out and do some fighting. The department might pay for them, they might not, but even if this goes nowhere, the department is going to lose a shiatload of money along the way. If the department somehow prevails, I can guarantee you that there will be policy changes. Sadly they won't be good ones like, "Don't invade citizens' homes uninvited," but rather DON'T WRITE shiat DOWN.
 
2013-07-04 06:17:16 PM

A Shambling Mound: Lady Indica: The_Gallant_Gallstone: A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.

What if they obeyed... under protest?

"I was only following orders" historically isn't exactly the best defense, but it tends to work pretty much only if the person is new, or lowest on the totem pole. They may believe they have no other options. Someone with rank or experience, they know they have other options.

So it seems to me anyway, I'm hardly expert in such.

That works okay in time of war, specifically regarding military personnel. The penalties they face for deliberately failing to follow orders can be steep.

As pointed out in this thread, cops are civilians. What's the worst that could happen to an objector? A black mark? Unpaid leave? Termination?

Any of those are better options than participating in abject idiocy and thuggery such as we are discussing.


That is a REALLY excellent point, and one I'd not considered.
 
2013-07-04 06:17:36 PM

Pinko_Commie: Amusingly those are American school kids, probably reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.


Precisely why I referenced that pic.
 
2013-07-04 06:18:51 PM

bunner: A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.

But zey were only follovink orderrs.

[www.addictinginfo.org image 524x516]

Godwin's pithy remark is not actually a law.  It was a pithy remark.  Deal.


Technically Godwin's Law is merely the observation that if a discussion's long enough, someone's going to eventually play the Nazi card.  The idea that playing it implies that you lost the argument is merely a corollary, and largely ignored these days anyway.
 
2013-07-04 06:19:02 PM

JerkStore: Now, I strongly suspect that there's some hyperbole in that complaint (the tip-off is how they go to great lengths to describe how the poor dog was treated)


People like dogs.  Give them a sandwich and you know where you stand.
 
2013-07-04 06:19:20 PM

prjindigo: No, SCOTUS would vote 9-0 on this one.  No warrant = no access, no exceptions.  SCOTUS has already said that no-knock-no-warrant entry of homes is a form of assisted suicide and homeowners cannot be prosecuted for defending their property.
If you're in an apartment you're screwed tho.


That's got nothing to do with the Third Amendment, however.
 
2013-07-04 06:19:41 PM
Dear American Government,

THIS IS NOT A PLAYBOOK.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-07-04 06:19:44 PM

Mithiwithi: The idea that playing it implies that you lost the argument is merely a corollary, and largely ignored these days anyway.


I'm aware of that.  As well it should be.
 
2013-07-04 06:21:14 PM
The cops think they're entitled to citizens' aid and it's a crime to refuse it in several States.

Ohio:   http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.23

2921.23 Failure to aid a law enforcement officer.

(A) No person shall negligently fail or refuse to aid a law enforcement officer, when called upon for assistance in preventing or halting the commission of an offense, or in apprehending or detaining an offender, when such aid can be given without a substantial risk of physical harm to the person giving it.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to aid a law enforcement officer, a minor misdemeanor.

Virginia has a similar law:  http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-463

And New York:   http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article195.htm#p195.10

Nevada doesn't seem to have such a statute.
 
2013-07-04 06:21:36 PM

WickerNipple: eventhelosers:   Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

??? Refusing to let the cops in your house does NOT make you an ahole.


In my opinion if your neighbor is beating the old lady or whatevs (my comprehension) and you won't help then it does, but you have that right.  God Bless America.  I'm atheist and all just sayin
 
2013-07-04 06:22:54 PM

hardinparamedic: So, the term would be more applicable to Military Police than it would regulars, given the intent of the language.


You do realize Military Police is a modern concept, don't you?
 
2013-07-04 06:23:15 PM

JerkStore: While I don't know the logistics of whether it will stick or if they'll simply fall under the umbrella of the department as government employees, at the very least these officers now have to hire their own lawyers to sort the mess out and do some fighting.


No they don't. It will be covered for them as long as they don't countersue. If they choose to take any individual action, THEN they're out from under that umbrella.

If they are found to have acted outside the scope of their official capacity (or illegally) THEN they can lose that protection, but they're very very bulletproof on this shiat. They kinda have to be or they'd be constantly hit with BS lawsuits. As it is, many are mass named in a case simply because they had some action in it, even if it was merely being part of the chain of custody for some evidence or some shiat.

This is why most do not countersue even when they could and win, because they're facing nutbags who have an axe to grind and a big warchest to burn on their zealotry or belief they're right or whatever.
 
2013-07-04 06:23:43 PM

BarkingUnicorn: (A) No person shall negligently fail or refuse to aid a law enforcement officer, when called upon for assistance in preventing or halting the commission of an offense, or in apprehending or detaining an offender, when such aid can be given without a substantial risk of physical harm to the person giving it.


Aren't these the same motherf*ckers who aren't legally obliged to intervene in activities harmful to citizens or halt criminal activity?
 
2013-07-04 06:24:40 PM
www.kurzweilai.net

It comes out next week. Buy it. Read it.
The author has a blog called the agitator. If you haven't go on his blog and read it. This is nothing compared to what other people have gone through.
/Yeah we militarized our police force over the past two decades
//It will only get worse, not better.
 
2013-07-04 06:26:28 PM

Gergesa: I'm honestly a little curious to know what was going through those cops heads.


They should get their asses kicked so hard the next thing going through their heads is their anal sphincters.
 
2013-07-04 06:32:16 PM
This is why every time a cop dies, I laugh my ass off.

Fark every last god damned one of them
 
Displayed 50 of 372 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report