Cops -- to serve and protect?

[ThePhoneGoddess]

The problem with the widespread distrust of police forces is twofold:


one, it has proven that certain types of personalities tend to gravitate toward jobs that involve lots of authority. Specifically, people who feel the need to have power over others. Of course not all officers are like that, but it is documented; that's also why police officers families (in the US at least) have higher rates of domestic violence than the general population. it is these people who ruin it for everyone else.

Two, positions of authority come with this caveat: Once you've been burned by an officer of the law, you will never trust one again. Several of the stories on this thread are testament to that.

[crazylegs]

And every one of them "lost" the report I thought I'd filed.

The more I hear about US police systems the more I shake my head, we have NCRS standards (National Crime Recording Standards), essentially this is how it works.

MOP (Member Of Public) reports crime by phone/fax/email/in person, record is created on computer sytem #1 and reference number is created then given to MOP

Officer then fully updates computer system #1

Officer then creates record on system #2 (it is 'crimed') and another reference number is created.

Reference number from #2 is inputted into #1.

There is a Sgt whose sole job it is is to review all records on #1 to make sure the reference numbers from #2 are inputted onto it

System #2 is also monitered by (another) Sgt who then 'reminds' you to do certain things if #2 is not updated regularly.

Police in the UK are lawfully bound to create a 'crime' on #2 if the following conditions are met :-
The Victim believes a crime has been comitted
AND
A recordable crime has occured
AND
There is no credible evidence to the contrary

So basically if you walk into a police station and you say you've been thumped unlawfully and you get given the #1 reference number there will be an investigation regardless of how little information you give.

I can't see the system working any differently myself.

[Sylvia727]

crazylegs, I don't know how our system works over here, and I'm sure it varies state to state and county to county. But even if we have a system similiar to yours, it wouldn't matter if the cop never put it into the computer. The cops admitted that they'd talked to me, but denied that I'd told them about the abuse. Any system will only work if the people upholding it are honorable.

[protege]

Yes, there are bad cops (power-abusers and the like), but also good ones who try to make up for the former.

That's just it--all it takes is one asshole to make an entire department look bad.

There was once a guy on our local force, who just loved to mess with people, especially those who just started driving. How do I know this? I was one of those people...

Flash back to 1993. I've been driving a month, and just had my first accident. Car in front of me suddenly stopped after leaving a light. The road was slick, I tried to stop, to no avail. Crunch--I've totaled their car and messed my Tempo up good. Cops came, and the one in charge was a prick. No matter what I, or the other driver said, he was having none of it. We all had the same story--they stopped suddenly, and I slid into them. Didn't matter, the officer put down what *he* decided happened--I was a young kid who was speeding. Didn't bother talking to the witnesses either. Not sure what to do, I called my father...who promptly came down. I told him what happened, and he argued with the cop...resulting in me getting cited for reckless driving, speeding, and a few other offenses. Meaning, I'd just gotten 6 points on my license!

Bastard. At least I was able to get out of it--the local magistrate threw out the charges because I was prepared. I simply explained what happened, presented evidence (including the fact that both cars failed the bumper test), witness statements. The kicker? That fucking cop didn't bother showing up. Apparently, he had the balls to push me around...but lacked them when it came to the hearing. It came out later that he liked to harass kids...which eventually led to his forced retirement. Turns out he tried to lean on the son of a local politician...who then sued the department.

That's the only negative police experience I recall. That officer took the job simply to push people around. He lost the job, simply because he had it coming. What's funny, is that the rest of the department did *not* like the guy. That's true of most jobs--there are always going to be assholes...so to paint one group with that same brush is a bit much.

I've dealt with several of those guys over the years, and they've been nothing but polite. A little anal-retentive when it comes to speed limits, but when you consider that my borough has an *extremely* low crime rate, I'm willing to accept that trade-off.

The exception, is the Brentwood police department. Those assholes *are* corrupt. Remember Johnny Gammage? He died in their custody, after being pulled over for supposedly driving erratically, in his cousin, NFL player Ray Seals' Jaguar. Those officers got away with it. In fact, one was promoted shortly afterwards! What the fuck?

From what I understand, that's not the first time someone's been roughed up. I know a few EMS workers...who have said that "you wouldn't believe how many times we get called because of the police..." That wouldn't surprise me--some of my friends were harassed many times when I was in high school.

[crazylegs]

crazylegs, I don't know how our system works over here, and I'm sure it varies state to state and county to county. But even if we have a system similiar to yours, it wouldn't matter if the cop never put it into the computer. The cops admitted that they'd talked to me, but denied that I'd told them about the abuse. Any system will only work if the people upholding it are honorable.

My apologies, I meant to say in the original post that once the second system generates your number the system automatically generates a letter that is sent to your home address (the officer has no input into this, nor has any control over it), so if you don't get said letter and you ask a question of why not then the smelly brown stuff hits the air cooling system.

[Boozy]

I simply explained what happened, presented evidence (including the fact that both cars failed the bumper test)

At risk of veering too far off topic here, I'm curious: What is the bumper test?

[protege]

Back in the 1970s, the NHTSA put together standards over bumpers. They had to survive a 5-mph impact with only superficial damage. Then about 1986 or so, the requirement was lowered to 2.5mph...and those plastic bumpers became more common. In other words, they became a cheap piece of plastic, rather than protection.

The other car got totaled, simply because the bumper was nothing more than a piece of plastic and aluminum. It offered no protection at all. (By "protection" I mean, from damage to the frame. I was going well under 20mph, yet the car got totaled

[RecoveringKinkoid]

My Fellow Americans (heheh...I got to say this!)...

I found this, too. It's really important stuff. You folks in other countries might not find it useful, but every Yank on the planet needs to not only watch it, but watch it twice and then refresh yourself on it every couple months.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjM...eature=related

It's about how to protect your Constitutional rights under the 4th and 5th Amendment (unlawful search and seizure, and right to remain silent, respectively). It blew my mind the sneakiness with which you can be stripped of your right. It goes over three scenarios; traffic stop, unlawful search of your home, and being confronted on the street by overzealous cops. I found it fascinating. It's long and the acting is bad, but I feel it's crucial to learn how to protect yourself in this increasing environment of civil rights violations.

[Depot Denizen]

I watched the Busted video - very informative and useful. It helps explain why you shouldn't consent to searches, and how to deal with certain situations.

[Dreamstalker]

Didn't matter, the officer put down what *he* decided happened--I was a young kid who was speeding. Didn't bother talking to the witnesses either.

When we first moved here, our house got broken into. In retrospect, I was unbelievably lucky--they had bashed in the front door. I came home in the back door, if they had still been there I probably would be dead).

I come into the living room, see what happened, drop my bag and call first the cops, then my mom. They had kicked in the door (super cheap-ass wood panel door), then reached in and undid the deadbolt. There was a towel on the floor on the inside and I could see blood on the edges of the hole where they reached through (I was a good little witness and didn't touch anything, only got as close as I needed to see stuff).

Cops show up. The officer in charge acts as if my mom left the door unlocked (probably why the homeowner's insurance never paid out for what got jacked). Picture a cop talking very condescendingly to my mom, and the only "real" witness trying in vain to tell what she thinks happened only to be ignored because "she's a kid and in shock" (bullshit, I called it in).

[jayel]

So are we supposed to applaud and cheer because the people in the videos were smart enough to use technicalities to weasel their way out of a legitimate arrest? The cops in the video might have had attitudes but they had legitimate reasons to make arrests. I don't like how so many criminals in the US get out of trouble on technicalities. If it was your store that had graffiti spray painted across it, would you care how they caught the criminal as long as he was caught? I'm sure it frustrates the cops too. I'm not saying the police should shake down everyone they come across, but if they end up with probable cause, like they did in the first half of each scenariao, then I'm all for the arrest. I'm not going to feel sorry for someone who is legitimately arrrested just because he didn't know or exercise his rights. The video was very interesting. But it seems that it is geared solely to help people who are actually guilty to get out of being arrested.

I'm more interested in protecting myself as an innocent person, more like in the first video posted. I'm wondering if a person who is innocent should follow the same guidelines listed in the second video? I mean, if I get pulled over for speeding and have nothing to hide, should I let the cops search my car and be done with it? Or should I refuse just because I can?

[RecoveringKinkoid]

You absolutly should. You don't know what the cop's motives are. If you are innocent, completely innocent, then there is another reason you are involved in the enounter, and you don't know what that reason is.

Did you watch the "Don't talk to cops" video I posted first? I realize that the flex your rights vids assumes there is some wrongdoing involved (except in the case of the art student who had the audacity to wait for a bus while black), but in the "don't talk to cops" vid, the guy shows how a simple traffic stop could spiral into a life altering mess. Even with the guy completely innocent.

See, you might think they are stopping your for speeding, or for a licence check, or whatever. But consider this: that licence check is probably not "just" a licence check. And you don't know what or who they are looking for, or what they might do, or if you fit their profile. If you think you really are innocent until proven guilty, you are setting yourself up for possibly getting into a bad situation.

I am innocent. I don't drive drunk, I don't do drugs of any sort. Hell, I don't even speed. I'd never, ever consent to a search of my house or my car. I apparently look quite a bit like a hippy and have been stopped a number of times, presumably by cops that were convinced I had a couple kilos of grass in my van.

Picture this scenario: Cop is convinced you are in possession. He asks to search your car. You allow it. He "finds" (read: plants) a nickle bag under your seat. You go for a ride downtown, booked for possession.

On the other hand, say you refuse to consent to a search. He can't plant false evidence. He can search your property against your will, but even if he FINDS a bonafide pile of evidence under your seat, your lawyer will probably successfully have it thrown it out of court because that evidence was obtained without a warrent and without consent. In other words, illegally.

I don't like the idea of criminals getting away either. But I like the idea that I will be victimized by bad cops and have my rights as a law abiding citizen taken away even less.

[Pedersen]

But it seems that they are geared solely to help people who are actually guilty to get out of being arrested.

I think you should re-watch that first one. Even if the person is not guilty, even if the person tells only the truth, even if the person does not get flustered and make mistakes, even if there is absolutely nothing pointing to the person being "interviewed", it is still possible for the police to twist words around and make you look guilty, guilty enough to be convicted and spend time in prison.

Add in the number of laws and regulations that you are expected to know and follow (federal laws alone were estimated around 10,000 laws to follow!), and you are guilty of something, whether you like it or not. It's just a matter of finding it.

Now, toss something else into the mix: Have you ever been in a position where your actions could have been called "rude" by someone? Have you ever done something to someone else that you yourself considered rude? Are you absolutely 100% certain you have never done something like that? Because, if you have, you're now open for a problem.

Everybody on this planet knows everybody else by, on average, six degrees of separation. This means that you know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who knows President Bush. Now, suppose you've really pissed this person off with your discourtesy, and this person actually knows how to use that little tidbit.

You could find yourself being arrested for an untold number of violations that you've never even heard of. You're out driving, and get pulled over because the police have been told to lean on you. Now do you want to let them search your car? How about search your house, or your person?

In case my answer wasn't clear enough: No, you should not let them search anything at all without a warrant. If they're incapable of getting a warrant, then they have no reason to search.

To turn your question around: If I have nothing to hide, then why do they have to search?

Finally, consider this quote from Cardinal de Richelieu: "If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him."

Unfortunately, the police are not our friends. They are not our protectors. They are there to enforce the laws passed by the rulers. If you disagree with any of those laws, and as such violate even one of them, they can (and will) arrest you as soon as they can. If you are ignorant of any of those laws, and as such violate even one of them, they can (and will) arrest your for that.

Do not believe you have nothing to hide. Unless, by some miracle, you know all federal laws and regulations, all state laws and regulations, all county laws and regulations, and all city/township laws and regulations (for every location you both visit and pass through, for instance on your daily commute to and from work), and are 100% certain that you never violate any one of them, and are also 100% certain that you never give cause to anybody to be upset with you for any reason who could then find a way to report you to the police and get them to make your life miserable.

Also, to restate what RecoveringKinkoid said: Are you 100% certain that you don't look like anybody else? Or that the facts surrounding you right at this very second don't sound like the facts of an active criminal investigation? Or that it should be the subject of an active criminal investigation? Here, a few stories for you of perfectly innocent people who very nearly had their lives ruined while GeoCaching (What is GeoCaching?):

• Two guys who were nearly arrested for pedophilia
• And some cachers who were arrested for bank robbery
• A father who was questioned because people thought he was dragging his daughter under a bridge
• A guy who is now on a watch list, from the sounds of it

Are you that secure? Are you that positive that you are untouchable? Are you that safe in your actions that it is impossible to misconstrue them for anything other than what they are? I'm not. And after watching how things can be turned around against me (even when I am innocent!), I now know that I will never speak a police officer without a lawyer present. Are you certain you should allow it?

[jayel]

Yes, RK I watched the first video.

Pedersen, I made mention of the difference between the two.

My point was that in the second video, it was all about how to go about NOT getting caugth for doing something illegal. My interest is in protecting myself as an innocent person, as the first video instructed.

[Pedersen]

My point was that in the second video, it was all about how to go about NOT getting caugth for doing something illegal. My interest is in protecting myself as an innocent person, as the first video instructed.

Actually, the point of the second was poorly conveyed, unfortunately. The point of the second video is how to make sure you maintain your rights.

The point of my post also appears to have been missed. You see, you are doing something illegal, somewhere in your life. I can guarantee it (well, unless you are simply sitting at your computer in your home doing nothing other than breathing, eating food provided by others, and posting only on fratching). Furthermore, it's only a matter of the police finding it before you will be arrested for it.

Protecting your rights means only that you are trying to live a life as best you can without fear of being arrested for violating laws you didn't know you were violating.

Go back and re-read what I said in that light, please.