e1p1,
I hear you whole heartedly. I made the statement earlier that I was sorry. I meant it. As I explained, I was reacting to something I had seen and became angry because of it. Maybe I should have refrained from posting at that time but felt a need to discuss the issue of my concern. The point was well taken that my derrogetory remark was unnecessary and clouded the message I was trying to present.
I applaud you for your support for those who's missioin is to protect "We the people".

I too, in an earlier life, had been kicked around a time or two by police dept officials. At the time, I thought that those cops were bad people. BUT looking back at my teen years, I can now see that I TOTALLY asked for it.

I am not proud of my actions back then but I can say that I have seen this from both sides. At least in my case, I deserved more than I received.
Yes, there are a few bad guys in a cop uniform. There are also bad guys in doctor uniforms, arsenists in firefigter uniforms etc. What got me on that show was what the "bad guys", who happened to be in dreadlocks, were doing and I responded. They were in the officers face while he was trying to handcuff an offender of the law. A little restraint might have been in order eh? But they were bent on getting the mud on these police officers.
The other thing that got me was when they stated that the tapes were then trimmed to be used to show a ficticious representation.

They just happened to be wearing dreadlocks but I would have been just as upset if they were corporate attorneys or preachers. I shouldn't have distracted the issue with the nature of their dress, even though in my mind it wasn't a surprise that they were dressed like that. Stereotypes you know. (Once again, I'm guilty)

Once again, sorry for offending anyone. If you can get past that mistake on my part, please focus on the real issue that I tried to express.
Thanks, T

 

If anyone interferes with a police officer doing his duty, then that person deserves a ride in a squad car. No doubt about it.

But if someone is going to videotape police activity from a distance to keep them in check, then I applaud and support them 100%. We pay their salaries, after all - we have a RIGHT to know that they are doing their job well.

I've had a few problems with police officers as well. I didn't deserve that kind of treatment. But we all know that police officers are like any other profession - mostly good people, but a few bad apples are always around. It's those bad apples that I worry about, and I'm glad that someone is keeping an eye on them.

 

> But what else should folks do when their steets are being highjacked by criminals.
> I wish they would focus more on the drug dealers though.

Some would say for drug dealers, run them over when noone is looking or drive through a side street without a stop sign and T-bone them with a large rental (straight) truck.

 

Boooo Hoooooo!

 

I've ran on both sides of the law and after readin all the comments gotta stick my penny in the pot. I don't like the idea of anyone being given authority or power, carte blanche, to do what they want without checks and balances regardless of which side of the law they walk.
Stereo-typing or labelling people is just plain wrong, as is all the ridiculous name calling.

The way things are going in the good 'ol U.S. of A., if ya don't like having big brother, big sister, or big transgender watching over yer shoulder, ya best move on.

 

I am a retired officer and here is what I did when "good samaritans" either took still shots, video or interjected their "two cents" into an investigation.

(I want to make this clear, I AM NOT REFERING TO NEWS REPORTERS OR LEGITIMATE CIVILIANS TAKING PHOTOS)

I determined that the photos, videos or "eyewitnessed" actions were "evidence in a police investigation of a crime". The "witnesses" name, address and phone number were taken AND they were officially subpoenaed to court AS A WITNESS FOR THE OFFICER!! It was amazing to see the immediate change in their statement (and attitiude) when they learned they would be spending a night or two in court on their own time testifying FOR the officer.

If the officer was acting properly the evidence did nothing but help convict the offender. All I can say is...I've never had a "repeat witness"!

At severe accident scenes, while administering first aid, a doctor would "waltz up" and start telling you what you were doing wrong. AFTER loudly announcing "I'M A DOCTOR...YOU SHOULD BE DOING_______! We would step back and say "JEEZ DOC, thanks for taking the patient from us!" That usually did it, they always had someplace else to go or would tell us their phychiatrists.

Our politness and respectfulness ended and we would order them from the scene (somewhat curtly, I might add).

I've had people video me and other fellow officers. If you ignore them they will get bored and go away. If they are warned their actions are causing you fear for your safety and they continue to distract you they CAN be charged with and convicted of interfering with a police investigation, at least in NJ.

 

I thought that cities were trying to get cameras in the cars anyway? At least here they want to. So as long as the people taking video just do that and don't doctor the tape it almost would seem like they are also protecting the cops from lawsuits. Now if they are interfering then I would think that there would be a possiblity of charges from the police.

 

On the news clip I saw, the cameraman was within 3' of an arrest in progress with the camera drawn. The Chief was the one who stated that the tapes were getting modified to exclude, and NOT in favor of the policemen.

 

I don't think copwatch goes far enough. I think a member of the district attorney/Public defender office should ride in every cruiser that rolls on public roads and interacts with the public, just to keep the cops in line.

 

That would be a lot better than some guy who's sole intent was to "get the man" with a camera. But I don't think any DA's office has the manpower to do that.

 

Now that we see overuse of force on tv,I think alot of people want to see civilians out there.Where I live,there seems to be a bigger problem with off duty cops causing trouble,and now they are starting to lose their jobs over it.

 

I know, I've had to ummmm, retract a few times myself . I totally understand and also have much respect for your ability to to so. No more mea culpas needed here.

I'm sure the odds were that you're not mistaken in this case. Berkeley and SF have foks who do just that type of cop baiting, and I've seen it on the news coverage of the WTO meetings. And it's wrong, and it stinks.

I'm in favor of in car cameras for cops because I think the vast majority of the time it'll exonerate the cop vs the perp.

MY apologies for not openly excluding you on my second post...you had already cleared things up. It was directed to another guy and to the world in general, not you.

I think if we sat down for a beer, we'd agree on more than we disagree...and I think I might even have a good time disagreeing with you on some things. Salud!

 

That's what they did with the whole Rodney King deal. The media cut out the part where they show him resisting arrest. I must say that the cops went too far but you only see the bad part.