Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k
Dammit people! If a cops asks to search your car or come into your house the answer is NO!Shaw’s ordeal began in September 2015. She had run out of gas when a Pasco County Sheriff’s Office deputy pulled up behind her car.
The deputy, Shaw said, asked if he could search her car and she consented. He found some pills and asked what they were. She said vitamins.
An Austrian man faces a 160-euro ($197) fine for describing police officers as "smurfs" in a warning about speed checks posted on Facebook.
The Austria Press Agency reported Tuesday that authorities in Tyrol province imposed the fine on the man, whose name wasn't released, for violating "public decency" by "defaming two police officers."
The man's post in a Facebook group alerted others to "two smurfs standing with lasers" on a local highway. A police officer who was also in the group filed a complaint.
But after arriving home on February 24, West Valley police were at their door.
“It is routine for police to investigate an unattended death,” said West Valley police chief Colleen Jacobs.
But the family claimed the officer went to far. In a recording from their home surveillance camera, the officer is told to “leave them the (expletive) alone.” It was the baby’s grandfather according the family attorney.
“We were grieving and didn’t want to be bothered,” said Maryssa Evans, the baby’s mother.
But the answer at the door may have caused the West Valley police officer to knock open the door and go inside the home. Once inside the situation became chaotic. There was yelling and arguing between police and family members. The officer can be heard saying arrests are possible.
“I didn’t do anything wrong,” said Richard Estrada, the baby’s grandfather.
“Turn around and put your hands behind your back,” the officer responded.
“Sir, I did nothing,” Estrada said again.
The video showed the two men struggling when Tevin Evans joins them. He and the officer both fall down the steps.
More officers arrive and Evans is finally arrested. Two family members are pepper sprayed.
Shot 8 times - 6 in the back, 1 in the side, 1 in the thigh. It is a text book self-defense case for sure.Lorini wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:45 am Surprised not to see the Clark killing in his own backyard here. Just so everyone knows what actually happened---he was running from people who never announced they were police, so from his point of view there was nothing to 'comply' with. The audio shows that the police never said who they were. The belief was that the police shot him 20 times because they thought Clark had a gun, but in fact the Chief of Police has denied ever saying that the police thought Clark had a gun, so apparently it was cold blooded murder. Later in the confrontation, the audio was turned off by the two policemen, leading the Chief to say that 'possibly we need to drastically overhaul our training in how audio is to be used and kept'.
Truly shameful.
ICE's reckoning will come - it has become twisted and evil.Moliere wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:29 pm 1) Be a legal permanent resident of the U.S.
2) Get charged for murder based on a corrupt cop's testimony.
3) Spend over 20 years in jail.
4) Get released after the police corruption is made public.
5) Get arrested by ICE because your residency status was revoked after the murder conviction.
6) Deportation pending...
According to a press release by the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, two marked patrol cars became surrounded by a group of protesters. As the protesters were yelling at the deputies, they also hit and kicked their cars. As one of the deputies attempted to drive away, the car struck a woman walking in the road.
No questions, just 'No" ... If the cops show up with a warrant, then you step aside.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:59 am So if a cop asks to search your car or come inside, your first question should be “am I suspected of a crime?” If “no” then your answer is “fuck you”? If “yes”, I guess you lawyer up?
That videos recommended next videos are hilarious.Paingod wrote:No questions, just 'No" ... If the cops show up with a warrant, then you step aside.Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:59 am So if a cop asks to search your car or come inside, your first question should be “am I suspected of a crime?” If “no” then your answer is “fuck you”? If “yes”, I guess you lawyer up?
Remember kids, the cops aren't required to be honest with you - and a disturbing amount of the time they're making the law up as they go. Everything you say can and will be used against you. Volunteer nothing. Stay calm.
The only question you might ask is "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?" If you're being detained, stop talking, ask for a lawyer, comply with everything they ask you to do because they just revoked your right to choose. If you don't get an answer, ask again. And again. And again... until you do get an answer.
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court considered the position of a suspect who understands his or her right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona and is aware he or she has the right to remain silent, but does not explicitly invoke or waive the right.
The Court held that unless and until the suspect actually stated that he was relying on that right, his subsequent voluntary statements could be used in court and police could continue to interact with (or question) him. The mere act of remaining silent was, on its own, insufficient to imply the suspect has invoked his or her rights. Furthermore, a voluntary reply even after lengthy silence could be construed as implying a waiver.
Sucked on his toes?A Chicago Police officer was ordered held on $200,000 bail Tuesday after he was charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault and official misconduct.
The alleged victim was a man suspected in a misdemeanor whom Carlyle Calhoun and another officer were assigned to guard at St. Bernard Hospital on Feb. 3.
Prosecutors said that, as the victim was shackled to a bed, the officer sucked the man’s toes, grabbed his penis and took a photo of the victim as he tried to use a portable urinal. Once the two were in a bathroom, Calhoun forcibly performed a sex act on the man, prosecutors said.
Fixed the article's content, bolded.Article wrote:“In the times when marijuana has been legalized in state after state, this is some kind of erotic police behavior — and it’s very much about discretion, so even if you can do things, should you be doing them?”
Article on LAPD about it:/12 But at about the moment I read transcripts of Officer Rafael Perez talking about how he and his crew would taunt suicidal people until they pulled the trigger, I made the final decision that I was on the wrong side. /end
As a distraught man contemplated suicide in his apartment near downtown Los Angeles, police officers from the LAPD's Rampart Division callously encouraged him to take his own life, according to previously unpublished transcripts of interviews with ex-officer Rafael Perez, which have been obtained by The Times.
"If you're going to commit suicide, hurry up and . . . do it, so we can get out of here," Perez quoted officers as saying to the unidentified man.
And the answer is:Moliere wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:00 pm Call of Duty gaming community points to ‘swatting’ in deadly Wichita police shooting
Answer the door, get shot. I hope they catch the crank caller. We'll see how the cop justifies the shooting.“A male came to the front door,” Livingston said. “As he came to the front door, one of our officers discharged his weapon.”
Livingston didn’t say if the man, who was 28, had a weapon when he came to the door, or what caused the officer to shoot the man. Police don’t think the man fired at officers, but the incident is still under investigation, he said. The man, who has not been identified by police, died at a local hospital.
A family member identified that man who was shot by police as Andrew Finch. One of Finch’s cousins said Finch didn’t play video games.
The Wichita police officer who fired the shot that killed Andrew Finch after a swatting call will not face charges, District Attorney Marc Bennett said Thursday.
Bennett said he had to make a determination based on Kansas law and law handed down by the Supreme Court, which says that when determining if an officer acted reasonably, evidence has to be reviewed based on what the officer knew at the time of the shooting, not 20/20 hindsight, he said.
So, what should they do to positively identify if it is 100% a shooter? Should they wait until the person fires shots at them? Should they approach the shooter asking them to hold their fire so that they can visually fully confirm there is a weapon? What is the line where they can fire on someone?gameoverman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:37 pm The reason I don't find that swatting shooting reasonable is this: The cops had no evidence any crime had been, or was being, committed. They were responding to a call about a possible crime.
So, yes, show up aware that something might be going on. Show up on alert for any danger to you or the other cops. But for Jebus's sake, don't shoot anyone until after a life threatening danger has been established.
I equate it to those hunting 'accidents' where the hunter kills someone then says "I thought it was a deer". Either it was a deer or it wasn't, what you think has nothing to do with it. Identify that it is a deer then you can shoot, otherwise you can't shoot.
These cops need to identify the deer first. Our society gives them a lot of power and refuses to punish wrongdoing though, so that's never gonna happen. I was a teen when the Eula Love case happened here in Los Angeles and I can remember how pissed off my parents and others were about police conduct then. So this kind of thing is unfortunately simply more of the same, the latest in a long, long line of abuses of power.
Ah, the false dichotomy.Punisher wrote: ↑Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:20 pmSo, what should they do to positively identify if it is 100% a shooter? Should they wait until the person fires shots at them? Should they approach the shooter asking them to hold their fire so that they can visually fully confirm there is a weapon? What is the line where they can fire on someone?gameoverman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:37 pm The reason I don't find that swatting shooting reasonable is this: The cops had no evidence any crime had been, or was being, committed. They were responding to a call about a possible crime.
So, yes, show up aware that something might be going on. Show up on alert for any danger to you or the other cops. But for Jebus's sake, don't shoot anyone until after a life threatening danger has been established.
I equate it to those hunting 'accidents' where the hunter kills someone then says "I thought it was a deer". Either it was a deer or it wasn't, what you think has nothing to do with it. Identify that it is a deer then you can shoot, otherwise you can't shoot.
These cops need to identify the deer first. Our society gives them a lot of power and refuses to punish wrongdoing though, so that's never gonna happen. I was a teen when the Eula Love case happened here in Los Angeles and I can remember how pissed off my parents and others were about police conduct then. So this kind of thing is unfortunately simply more of the same, the latest in a long, long line of abuses of power.
I used the 100% because that is my perception of gameoverman's condition that they need to identify the "deer". He specifically mentions either its a deer or not a deer. in this case it's either a gun or not a gun. His idea did not seem to give other options then binary ones.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:39 pmAh, the false dichotomy.Punisher wrote: ↑Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:20 pmSo, what should they do to positively identify if it is 100% a shooter? Should they wait until the person fires shots at them? Should they approach the shooter asking them to hold their fire so that they can visually fully confirm there is a weapon? What is the line where they can fire on someone?gameoverman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:37 pm The reason I don't find that swatting shooting reasonable is this: The cops had no evidence any crime had been, or was being, committed. They were responding to a call about a possible crime.
So, yes, show up aware that something might be going on. Show up on alert for any danger to you or the other cops. But for Jebus's sake, don't shoot anyone until after a life threatening danger has been established.
I equate it to those hunting 'accidents' where the hunter kills someone then says "I thought it was a deer". Either it was a deer or it wasn't, what you think has nothing to do with it. Identify that it is a deer then you can shoot, otherwise you can't shoot.
These cops need to identify the deer first. Our society gives them a lot of power and refuses to punish wrongdoing though, so that's never gonna happen. I was a teen when the Eula Love case happened here in Los Angeles and I can remember how pissed off my parents and others were about police conduct then. So this kind of thing is unfortunately simply more of the same, the latest in a long, long line of abuses of power.
It can be below 100% but has to somewhere above, "if someone opens the door, shoot them." Keep in mind, they're acting on anonymous tip.
Well, obviously they weren't 100% correct in that case, which helps to prove my point.. There isn't really a way to be absolutely certain.. In the SWATTING case, they received a call from someone claiming to BE the shooter, they had know way to know one way or the other if it was true.. This was a 911 caller saying they shot their father, they had their mother and brother held hostage and that they had poured gas around the house and were ready to set it on fire.
An internal investigation is underway after a Baton Rouge Police officer was recorded on body camera video suggesting that, despite not having probable cause to search a vehicle, she would report whatever was found during a search as being found in plain view.
The WBRZ Investigative Unit learned of the investigation and obtained the footage Monday.
At least two other officers at the scene appeared to be uncomfortable with what the officer was saying and told her they needed "p-c" or probable cause. Probable cause is a standard in criminal law that allows officers to execute a search. Probable cause is not needed if something is in plain view.
...
"I want to get her out of this truck, and let's search the truck," Officer Robin Ducote's body camera recorded her saying.
Another officer asked her, "Do you have p-c?"
"Yeah, they are both f****** passed out," Ducote responds. "So, if we find something, we say it's in plain view. Who gives a s***, we're writing this report."
Defense Lawyer Jarret Ambeau was shocked to see the video.
"I can't think a person willing to make these kinds of decisions should have a badge and be on the streets of Louisiana and dealing with our citizens on a regular basis," Ambeau said.
The state attorney general’s office announced Thursday that 32-year-old Eric Richardson faces charges including official misconduct, criminal coercion and tampering with records.
Prosecutors allege Richardson pulled over female drivers and threatened to arrest them unless they handed over their phone numbers. They allege in one case he pulled a woman over three times, the last time to ask her if she’d been getting his texts. They say he logged that stop as “aiding a motorist.”
The incident happened early Sunday when 25-year-old Chikesia Clemons, and her friend Canita Adams went to Waffle House. While placing an order, Clemons asked for plastic utensils, at which point an employee told her that would be an additional charge of 50 cents.
When Clemons and Adams told the employee that they had not been charged for utensils when they’d purchased food from that same Waffle House just the night before, the employee suddenly canceled their order. Clemons then asked for the contact information for the Waffle House district manager.
“They didn’t even ask her to leave, she was waiting for them to give her the district manager’s card so she could file a complaint on one of the waitresses,” Clemons’ mother, Chiquitta Clemons-Howard, told the news site. “When they went to go get the card, that’s when the police showed up. The officer should’ve come in and said, ‘We need you to leave.’”
Video shows that after briefly speaking to Clemons, a white Saraland, Ala., police officer dragged the young woman by her arm from where she was sitting and onto the floor of the Waffle House. Three officers stood over the young woman and pulled at her limbs as they attempted to cuff her. Their actions resulted in Clemons’ top being pulled down, exposing her breasts.
