Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 104

Thread: Police policies regarding OCers and people filming the police.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747

    Police policies regarding OCers and people filming the police.

    Some people have had negative experiences with the cops while OCing and some have had negative experiences with the cops while filming them. Some have had both!

    Disclosure: I've OC'd and filmed the police many times w/o problems

    Considering especially recent case law, cops should not interfere with people filming them (except in very limited circumstances like telling the person to step back from the crime scene etc. which would apply equally to a person not filming), and in states that allow OC, cops should not interfere in any way with an OCer.

    Yet, some cops DO interfere.

    In deciding whether ofc. complaints are valid and also the punishment merited, one of the most important factors that investigators look at is training. Iow, ofc's are generally not responsible for researching case law on their own (I do this but I love reading case law), and keeping updated with it. If an officer engages in misconduct either with an OCer or a filmer and the dept. cannot show that they at least provided roll call training on these subjects OR have written policy governing these issues, often the complaint cannot be sustained for that reason. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse, but in cases like this - frankly, it often is. Whinge about it if you want, but especially when it comes down to binding arbitration this is an incredibly important issue - did the officer act contrary to training? Did the officer act contrary to common practice?

    ESPECIALLY if an officer can show that not only wasn't he trained to respond to OCers and filmers in a certain way, but that other officers have responded similarly to his response and not been disciplined, the case will almost certainly be non-sustained or exonerated.

    Police General Orders and Policies and Procedures are PUBLICALLY DISCLOSABLE documents.

    Imo, one of the most important things a citizen (noncop) can do is attend community meetings that cops attend (at least my agency does) and address these concerns. It's quite possible your local agency HAS NO POLICY regarding OCers or filmers. I recently attended a community meeting to address a sign in a local park that said "firearms prohibited". Needless to say my hometown cannot prohibit firearms in public parks and they took the sign down. Simple.

    Police officers are public servants. They work for YOU. And it is incumbent upon the average concerned citizen (not just politicians and cop-o-crats) to assure that their local PD's policies and GO's are consistent with the law AND respectful of the rights of OCers and filmers.

    My agency fwiw, has excellent training and policy on both issues, so ofc's CAN be held accountable for acting contrary to training.

    How many OCers here have read their local PD's GO manual or Policies and procedures? How many have attended community meetings where the cops are open to citizen inquiry and complaint and made their concerns known?

    Grumbling in the echo chamber here amidst fellow travelers is cathartic but it doesn't accomplish anything vs. getting the police to create policy that protects us (OCers and filmers) and ensuring that ofc's who act contrary to same can be held accountable

    I would suggest few to none have done this

    Cops work for YOU. Considering that, I would argue it's not just a good idea, but it's a civic duty to keep an eye on your local PD and one way you can do that is to get a copy of their manuals and inquire about their training in these areas. It's a matter of taking personal responsibility to oversee those who are serving you every day.

  2. #2
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Police department policy is purely internal to the police department and has no bearing on law. Law has bearing on law. It is not my responsibility to cajole a police department into creating policy that matches law. It is my responsibility to elect legislators to create law. It is entirely the police department's responsibility to follow and uphold that law. Police department agreements with unions are irrelevant to me. Police departments and police officers are individually and collectively responsible for following and upholding law. I don't care what agreements they make with each other.

    ************************ The only thing that matters is the law. Break it, and we'll demand consequences commensurate with law, not your irrelevant "policy".
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 08-06-2013 at 01:46 AM. Reason: Edited unacceptable verbiage

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    Milwaukee Police Department Standard Operating Procedures

    "In the spirit of partnership with the community, the Milwaukee Police Department strives to make our department as accessible as possible to the people we serve. With that in mind, we have included our Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) on our website. These procedures provide direction to our members in a wide variety of situations that occur as they carry out the mission of the Milwaukee Police Department. We believe public access to these guidelines provides clarity concerning our operations and offers a level of transparency that will benefit both our agency and our community.

    Some Standard Operating Procedures are currently under development and are not posted on the site at this time. When additions or modifications occur, those updated procedures will be posted as well. For more information regarding these Standard Operating Procedures contact the Office of Management, Analysis, and Planning at omap@milwaukee.gov."

    http://city.milwaukee.gov/Police/mpdservices/SOP1.htm

    There follow about a hundred SOP's. Put up or shut up.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 08-06-2013 at 01:48 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    Police department policy is purely internal to the police department and has no bearing on law. Law has bearing on law. It is not my responsibility to cajole a police department into creating policy that matches law. It is my responsibility to elect legislators to create law. It is entirely the police department's responsibility to follow and uphold that law. Police department agreements with unions are irrelevant to me. Police departments and police officers are individually and collectively responsible for following and upholding law. I don't care what agreements they make with each other.

    *********************************. The only thing that matters is the law. Break it, and we'll demand consequences commensurate with law, not your irrelevant "policy".
    Attitudes like yours exhibit being part of the problem not part of the solution. Your local PD works for you and serves you. If you don't want to be a responsible member of your community and make an effort to improve the service provided to you, your loved ones, and your neighbors, that's certainly your choice.

    Your attitude reminds me of people who don't vote and then complain about what a poor job our electorate are doing.

    I am fortunate enough to live in a community with a top notch PD and part of the reason is that they work closely with block watch, and other community members, and they send citizens through citizen's academies for those who want to learn more about policing and how to improve their quality of life etc.

    Crime prevention, just like self defense is first and foremost the job of the citizen NOT the police. The police too often get their much too late and the police can't be vigilant in every community all the time, looking for suspicious behavior, etc. But average citizens can.

    If you don't care about the quality of policing in your community, and by your attitude you clearly don't, then cheers to you!

    I'll continue, as do my neighbors, to work WITH the police to make our neighborhoods safer and to ensure that the police are doing the right thing, and that when they do the wrong thing they are held accountable.

    And it's better to teach officers (through policy and roll call training) to do the right thing from the get go vs. wait for the cops to screw up because they don't have relevant policy and whinge after the fact.

    Thank God, most people in this country don't feel the way you do (polling data per gallup shows strong support for the police and consideration of their honesty and professionalism. Cites available upon request)

    Have a good day!
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 08-06-2013 at 01:48 AM. Reason: Edited qoute

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    "In the spirit of partnership with the community, the Milwaukee Police Department strives to make our department as accessible as possible to the people we serve. With that in mind, we have included our Standard Operating Procedures (SOPís) on our website. These procedures provide direction to our members in a wide variety of situations that occur as they carry out the mission of the Milwaukee Police Department. We believe public access to these guidelines provides clarity concerning our operations and offers a level of transparency that will benefit both our agency and our community.

    Some Standard Operating Procedures are currently under development and are not posted on the site at this time. When additions or modifications occur, those updated procedures will be posted as well. For more information regarding these Standard Operating Procedures contact the Office of Management, Analysis, and Planning at omap@milwaukee.gov."

    http://city.milwaukee.gov/Police/mpdservices/SOP1.htm

    There follow about a hundred SOP's. Put up or shut up.
    Put up or shut up what? What are you hostile about? That's awesome that MPD puts their SOP's on their website. That's a good idea. I'll suggest to my local PD that they do the same.

    I would hope they have progressive policies consistent with the law and good policing, especially vis a vis OC (does WI allow OC ? I have no idea) and filming of the police.

    I love being filmed. Happens THAT I KNOW OF at least 2-3 times a week.

    And I have no idea why you have this attitude up put up or shut up. To what are you referring?

    cheers

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    SNIP

    Considering especially recent case law, cops should not interfere with people filming them (except in very limited circumstances like telling the person to step back from the crime scene etc. which would apply equally to a person not filming), and in states that allow OC, cops should not interfere in any way with an OCer.

    Yet, some cops DO interfere.

    In deciding whether ofc. complaints are valid and also the punishment merited, one of the most important factors that investigators look at is training. Iow, ofc's are generally not responsible for researching case law on their own (I do this but I love reading case law), and keeping updated with it. If an officer engages in misconduct either with an OCer or a filmer and the dept. cannot show that they at least provided roll call training on these subjects OR have written policy governing these issues, often the complaint cannot be sustained for that reason. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse, but in cases like this - frankly, it often is. Whinge about it if you want, but especially when it comes down to binding arbitration this is an incredibly important issue - did the officer act contrary to training? Did the officer act contrary to common practice?

    ESPECIALLY if an officer can show that not only wasn't he trained to respond to OCers and filmers in a certain way, but that other officers have responded similarly to his response and not been disciplined, the case will almost certainly be non-sustained or exonerated.
    Cop-apology nonsense. Six years too late, at that.

    We figured out long ago that pointing to cop training is a red-herring meant to misdirect.

    The facts are simple.

    A cop doesn't need training in how to handle OCers or videographers. All he needs to know is that he does not know its illegal. If he cannot mentally point to the exact law and know to a dead moral certainty the conduct is illegal, then he has no way to know whether he has authority to act. If he does not know to a dead moral certainty that he positively has legal authority to act, he has no business interfering with the OCer or videographer.

    It really is that simple.

    One has to turn law and liberty on their heads to use the training excuse. One is basically saying the cop can do anything he wants until he's told he can't do certain things. This is basically unlimited authority in any area not prohibited--it turns constitutional government upside down. Further, if people who don the uniform need training not to throw their weight around, use only the authority they have, and to behave decently towards citizens, then we don't need or want them on the police force.

    Thanks for confirming what we already knew--some cops get away with a lot and hold themselves above the law, giving themselves powers they do not have. And, apparently, commands know this and tolerate it, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for "training" to not illegally detain OCers or unlawfully seize the private property of videographers.

    Thanks for the dismissive "whinge about it if you want" (translation: its legit and there's nothing you can do about it so get used to it). I would have thanked you for the suggestion about looking into training and SOPs, except the whinge comment convinced you weren't serious, just pulling a PR stunt to make yourself look good. That and the fact that OCers have been FOIAing SOPs and General Orders for years. Meaning thanks a lot for telling us to do what we've already been doing. Condescend much?
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-04-2013 at 06:40 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    If you don't care about the quality of policing in your community, and by your attitude you clearly don't, then cheers to you!
    You are willfully disregarding what I said, and the context (your OP) in which I said it. You are attempting to excuse police misconduct as a lapse in training and policy, and suggesting that the populace is somehow responsible for making sure police policy and training are proper and adequate. Quite to the contrary, it is entirely the responsibility of the police department to make sure their policies fully and explicitly direct police officers in accurately following and upholding law. Any failure of training is entirely the responsibility and fault of the police department. Any misconduct by police officers due to inadequate training or broken police department policy is entirely the responsibility and fault of the police department and police officer.

    You are trying to take an advisable nicety (community interaction with police) and cast it as a near-responsibility, then suggesting that those who do not enact this nicety are somehow responsible for police officer misconduct and the inadequacies of police department policy and training. Tough ****, we aren't buying it. If the populace freely chooses to assist police departments in improving inadequate policy and training, that's a wonderful blessing the populace has given the police department. It is not something the police department gets to expect. The police department is entirely responsible for the establishment of adequate policy and training to follow and uphold the entirety of the law, whether the populace throws them a bone or not.

    When police departments and police officers take full responsibility for themselves, then we can talk about giving them some extra help they don't have a right to expect.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    You are willfully disregarding what I said, and the context (your OP) in which I said it. You are attempting to excuse police misconduct as a lapse in training and policy, and suggesting that the populace is somehow responsible for making sure police policy and training are proper and adequate. Quite to the contrary, it is entirely the responsibility of the police department to make sure their policies fully and explicitly direct police officers in accurately following and upholding law. Any failure of training is entirely the responsibility and fault of the police department. Any misconduct by police officers due to inadequate training or broken police department policy is entirely the responsibility and fault of the police department and police officer.

    You are trying to take an advisable nicety (community interaction with police) and cast it as a near-responsibility, then suggesting that those who do not enact this nicety are somehow responsible for police officer misconduct and the inadequacies of police department policy and training. Tough ****, we aren't buying it. If the populace freely chooses to assist police departments in improving inadequate policy and training, that's a wonderful blessing the populace has given the police department. It is not something the police department gets to expect. The police department is entirely responsible for the establishment of adequate policy and training to follow and uphold the entirety of the law, whether the populace throws them a bone or not.

    When police departments and police officers take full responsibility for themselves, then we can talk about giving them some extra help they don't have a right to expect.
    I'm speaking descriptively not normatively. Iow, I'm not excusing X. I am explaining X. And the reality is (try reading some arbitrator reports) that failure to train is key, and that it is much harder to hold an officer accountable for misconduct if that misconduct is contrary to training and/or policy.

    Clearly, you are just looking to be hostile and argue, and that bores me. And by your own admission you feel no civic duty to improve your community and your local PD but instead just want to whinge about the status quo. That bores me also. Ironic that the people with the most criticism are often the people least likely to get off their okoles and work towards fixing a problem.

    Cops are public servants and they serve you. If you want them to do a better job, you get involved where you can. If your local PD is properly treating OCers and filmers with respect, than that's awesome. But if they aren't, you have the power (feel the POWER) to facilitate change. In this country, the police are and should be a key part of the community and they work with communities and individuals in partnership. Thank god so many responsible citizens take it upon themselves to work for change and to help detect and/or thwart crime. A substantial %age of DUI's, car break'ins and burglaries we solve and.or catch the bad guy in the act is because of active members of the community watching out for their neighbors.

    Cheers

  9. #9
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    And the reality is (try reading some arbitrator reports) that failure to train is key, and that it is much harder to hold an officer accountable for misconduct if that misconduct is contrary to training and/or policy.
    Purely an internal employment issue. Arbitrarion is none of my concern. The police department is fully responsible for putting fully-capable officers on duty. If they can't discipline their own employees, they don't deserve to have jobs.

    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    Clearly, you are just looking to be hostile and argue, and that bores me. And by your own admission you feel no civic duty to improve your community and your local PD but instead just want to whinge about the status quo. That bores me also. Ironic that the people with the most criticism are often the people least likely to get off their okoles and work towards fixing a problem.
    You're dodging because you have no defense to offer. You refuse to accept that police departments and police officers are fully responsible for accurately and completely following and upholding law. Instead, you just want to complain that they don't get enough free help. You worry about doing your job. I'll worry about whether I should help you do it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Cop-apology nonsense. Six years too late, at that.

    We figured out long ago that pointing to cop training is a red-herring meant to misdirect.

    The facts are simple.

    A cop doesn't need training in how to handle OCers or videographers. All he needs to know is that he does not know its illegal. If he cannot mentally point to the exact law and know to a dead moral certainty the conduct is illegal, then he has no way to know whether he has authority to act. If he does not know to a dead moral certainty that he positively has legal authority to act, he has no business interfering with the OCer or videographer.

    It really is that simple.

    One has to turn law and liberty on their heads to use the training excuse. One is basically saying the cop can do anything he wants until he's told he can't do certain things. This is basically unlimited authority in any area not prohibited--it turns constitutional government upside down. Further, if people who don the uniform need training not to throw their weight around, use only the authority they have, and to behave decently towards citizens, then we don't need or want them on the police force.

    Thanks for confirming what we already knew--some cops get away with a lot and hold themselves above the law, giving themselves powers they do not have. And, apparently, commands know this and tolerate it, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for "training" to not illegally detain OCers or unlawfully seize the private property of videographers.

    Thanks for the dismissive "whinge about it if you want" (translation: its legit and there's nothing you can do about it so get used to it). I would have thanked you for the suggestion about looking into training and SOPs, except the whinge comment convinced you weren't serious, just pulling a PR stunt to make yourself look good. That and the fact that OCers have been FOIAing SOPs and General Orders for years. Meaning thanks a lot for telling us to do what we've already been doing. Condescend much?
    Yet another person who cannot grok the difference between normative and descriptive text. I am speaking descriptively. I am explaining to you how things are, not how they should be.

    hth

    If you don't want to get involved to improve your local PD, that's fine. One of the most essential rights you have as an american is to do nothing to improve your community but just sit back and complain about how bad stuff is.

    Fortunately, there are people who DO care and who do make a difference.

    If you want to ignore reality, and what I am explaining about failure to train etc. affecting arbitrator and discipline outcome IS REALITY, especially under CBA's and the extensive due process cops are afforded under same , then feel free to do so.

    Or you could do something. Get a copy of your local PD's GO and Procedures manuals. Go to community meetings and express concerns to make positive change, vs. circle jerking in the OC forum echo chamber where you get catharsis but the status quo remains the same.

    PD's are a reflection of the communities they serve. You can't have a top notch PD if you have a community that isn't willing to get involved since individual citizens ARE the first line of defense, not the cops.

    Again, I thank god I live in a community where people do care and also where people can tell the difference between a descriptive and a normative post!

    cheers

  11. #11
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    I think PALO is trying to tell us how it actually works. Not sure it serves any purpose to argue with what he's reporting, though we may not like hearing it.

    Is it a red herring, is it deflection, do they do things bass-ackward - heck yeah. Should the know the law in these important areas. I don't know if I would go as far as Citizen and say they can't intervene or attempt to arrest for things they don't know are not illegal. For the majority of things one might use common sense, but for 2A and 4A rights, you'd want them to know.

    Unfortunately, it's a defense for the LEO to say 'I dint know it was legal, when I cuffed and stuffed him - so the magi will have to sort it out', even civil and const. rights issues.

  12. #12
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    I think PALO is trying to tell us how it actually works. Not sure it serves any purpose to argue with what he's reporting, though we may not like hearing it.
    That's a gracious view of PALO's arguments. Let's work with it.

    Essentially, then, PALO is saying, "Here's the situation, our hands are tied. Sorry! But hey, why don't you come tell us stuff, and if we like it, maybe we'll act on it." Being the most generous possible to PALO, let's presume cops really can egregiously violate the law and get a bye due to arbitration rules. We don't just throw up our hands at this point and huff and go about our business. No, we need to look at the fact that the police department (and whatever other government hierarchy is involved) created this situation. Indeed, it is a clear demonstration of incompetence to duty that they have allowed police officer employment to exist in such a way that they cannot fully discipline their employees. FIRE THEM. If they can't discipline cops, I'll find someone who can.

    In the best (to him) possible reading of PALO's arguments, he's arguing that police commanders are incompetent. The solution isn't happy little non-binding committee meetings. The solution is immediate termination of the people who created the problem. Once we put competent people in place, we'll get those pesky offending cops sorted out right quick.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    SNIP Or you could do something. Get a copy of your local PD's GO and Procedures manuals. Go to community meetings and express concerns to make positive change, vs. circle jerking in the OC forum echo chamber where you get catharsis but the status quo remains the same.
    Oh, what makes you think I haven't, Mr. Member Since Last Year?

    Let me tell you how it works. You get together with police and they dig in their heels to protect their position.

    You invite them to a gun-rights meeting, and they treat you like a child, approaching it with a view to showing mere citizens how the police operate as though we're supposed to be impressed by them. Then, during a demonstration of how they would approach a LAC, they ignore his refused consent, and even go so far as to ask him which pocket he carries his wallet in, as though a free man is going to tolerate having a cop dig his wallet out of his pocket.

    Yes, the meetings and voicing concerns can have an effect. We've seen it. Its a limited effect; it only goes as far as the police want it to. Beyond that, they dig in their heels and do as much as they think they can get away with.

    For new readers, one of the reasons OCers are much less frequently unmolested by police is because OCers came out swinging after a bad encounter. Threats of lawsuits, videos and voice-recorders, that sort of thing.

    One might say there's only a few cops who need that sort of incentive to behave decently. Fair enough. I would only ask one question: where are all the good cops noisily demanding the bad cops knock it off or get fired?
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-04-2013 at 07:03 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    SNIP If you want to ignore reality, and what I am explaining about failure to train etc. affecting arbitrator and discipline outcome IS REALITY, especially under CBA's and the extensive due process cops are afforded under same , then feel free to do so.
    Nice try, bucko. Do you want to weigh in on my analysis of the training excuse or not? Got an articulate refutation or not?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    I think PALO is trying to tell us how it actually works. Not sure it serves any purpose to argue with what he's reporting, though we may not like hearing it.

    Is it a red herring, is it deflection, do they do things bass-ackward - heck yeah. Should the know the law in these important areas. I don't know if I would go as far as Citizen and say they can't intervene or attempt to arrest for things they don't know are not illegal. For the majority of things one might use common sense, but for 2A and 4A rights, you'd want them to know.

    Unfortunately, it's a defense for the LEO to say 'I dint know it was legal, when I cuffed and stuffed him - so the magi will have to sort it out', even civil and const. rights issues.
    You are exactly correct. I happen to be a trainer so I see these issues firsthand. ANd of course there are the seminal cop events that demonstrate failure to train (the Newhall shooting, the Florida FBI Bank robbery debacle etc.).

    In most agencies, officers are privileged with substantial protections of CBA's and especially the final step - binding arbitration. In my agency, 4 out of 5 of the last batch of cops who were fired and went to binding arbitration got their jobs back. And I can say that a SUBSTANTIAL # of arbitrator reports I read where a cop does something #$(#$('d up and isn't held accountable and/or gets their job back is either failure to train or "past practices" (where other officers who did the same thing WEREN'T disciplined or counseled so you can't hold the current cop responsible for following common practices just because the RESULT was bad). It's all about process analysis, not results analysis.

    In my agency, because of our roll call training and our policies, if an officer violates the rights of a person filming the police OR an OC'er he will be held accountable.

    But what is more important is that by arming officers with the proper training, we usually PREVENT the misconduct in the first place. I am confident many of the above posters would rather see an officer do something wrong and get punished (pound of flesh!) than see change in their agency such that misconduct was grossly diminished.

    People wrongly see my DESCRIPTIVE analysis as "apologetics" which just shows a lack of reading comprehension since it's clear I am not advocating for how things should be in regards to holding ofc's accountable but how they ARE

    In my perfect world, cops would be required to be in shape, they would have mandatory mental health testing every year, and there would be a lot of change in training. By reading case law , I have an IMMENSE advantage in investigations (like the arson case I solved) because I can know where I stand with a lot of very intricate case law in my state (my state has very strong protections against search and seizure compared to the federal standard). But we don't require ofc's to keep current with the LED's and case law. My prior agency, once a month we had people from the prosecutors office AND the public defenders office provide roll call training to us on various legal updates. Armed with information, we were more effective AND less likely to transgress, since the boundaries were clearer to us

    Failure to train can ultimately result in death e.g the BART shooting where the ofc. failed to distinguish between his taser and his gun. Even Radley Balko, a fierce cop critic, opined that the low manslaughter verdict was the correct one and I respect him for that. What a cluster#$(#$(

    Regardless, it's clear a lot of people would rather complain and say "it's somebody else's problem" that their local PD sux but imo it's a civic duty to get involved.

    cheers

  16. #16
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    I am confident many of the above posters would rather see an officer do something wrong and get punished (pound of flesh!) than see change in their agency such that misconduct was grossly diminished.
    The only reliable way for anything to change in any agency is precisely for officers who do something wrong to get punished. That's how people work. You can have all the training and community meetings you want. Until cops lose their jobs and go to jail for breaking the law, cops will keep breaking the law. Period.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    SNIP Is it a red herring, is it deflection, do they do things bass-ackward - heck yeah. Should the know the law in these important areas. I don't know if I would go as far as Citizen and say they can't intervene or attempt to arrest for things they don't know are not illegal. For the majority of things one might use common sense, but for 2A and 4A rights, you'd want them to know.

    Unfortunately, it's a defense for the LEO to say 'I dint know it was legal, when I cuffed and stuffed him - so the magi will have to sort it out', even civil and const. rights issues.
    This is precisely why I brought this up.

    Government lackeys and so forth have caused so much confusion in this area that it requires examining the fundamentals.

    They are very simple really. The confusion only comes in when government apologists start creating justifications, excuses, and lies.

    Government in this republic and its member states only has the authority delegated. The whole point of a constitution is to limit government. In our case there was clean break on July 4th 1776, after which the people of various states delegated authority to new state governments with consitutions.

    A long-held right is the right to be left alone unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. See Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford. It hits the very heart of the issue. Unless something is expressly illegal, it is presumed legal, and a person is to be left alone.

    Remove that last one, and you don't need Terry v Ohio and reasonable suspicion anymore--the cop can just seize anybody anytime for whatever reason he wants.

    So, while there are exceptions like seizing someone is insane to prevent him from harming himself, or they're doing a highly regulated activity like driving (DUI roadblocks), cops can only interfere with people if they are doing something illegal or, under the specious reasoning of Terry, if they are doing something that makes the cop suspect a crime is, was, or is about to be committed.

    So, exceptions for community caretaking and so forth aside, a cop only has authority to interfer if illegal. There's a reason for that. Goes clear back to Magna Carta. Its called freedom.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    SNIP In my agency, because of our roll call training and our policies, if an officer violates the rights of a person filming the police OR an OC'er he will be held accountable.

    But what is more important is that by arming officers with the proper training, we usually PREVENT the misconduct in the first place. I am confident many of the above posters would rather see an officer do something wrong and get punished (pound of flesh!) than see change in their agency such that misconduct was grossly diminished.
    Thank you for confessing that your department doesn't hammer home the lesson of "no authority = no action". It doesn't take training to point out no authority. All it takes is asking the miscreant one question: what was your authority to seize the video (or whatever action is in question)? When he fails to give a 100% correct answer, he's suspended, fired, and/or told to hire his own attorney because the citizen is suing and neither the department, nor union will pay for an attorney.

    All you did was testify how many layers of mud and silt have been built up to protect police on this subject, how deeply entrenched and tolerated it really is.

    By the way, the two seminal events you cited that prompted police training--Newhall and FL--caused training in order to protect police. Kinda reveals your priorities doesn't it? Train police to protect them, not citizens rights, the subject under discussion.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    This is precisely why I brought this up.

    Government lackeys and so forth have caused so much confusion in this area that it requires examining the fundamentals.

    They are very simple really. The confusion only comes in when government apologists start creating justifications, excuses, and lies.

    Government in this republic and its member states only has the authority delegated. The whole point of a constitution is to limit government. In our case there was clean break on July 4th 1776, after which the people of various states delegated authority to new state governments with consitutions.

    A long-held right is the right to be left alone unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. See Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford. It hits the very heart of the issue. Unless something is expressly illegal, it is presumed legal, and a person is to be left alone.

    Remove that last one, and you don't need Terry v Ohio and reasonable suspicion anymore--the cop can just seize anybody anytime for whatever reason he wants.

    So, while there are exceptions like seizing someone is insane to prevent him from harming himself, or they're doing a highly regulated activity like driving (DUI roadblocks), cops can only interfere with people if they are doing something illegal or, under the specious reasoning of Terry, if they are doing something that makes the cop suspect a crime is, was, or is about to be committed.

    So, exceptions for community caretaking and so forth aside, a cop only has authority to interfer if illegal. There's a reason for that. Goes clear back to Magna Carta. Its called freedom.
    Terry is entirely consistent with freedom, as well as our constitution. But we can agree to disagree on that. It is certainly the bread and butter of patrol work. You can look for penumbras and emanations all you want, but the standard for searches and seizures comes down to "reasonable". You are (correctly) echoing PJ when you say it boils down to the right to be left alone. That is so much the essence of the BOR and especially the 4th. We can agree on that

    I haven't seen any apologists in this thread, but you started out failing to distinguish the descriptive from the normative, so I can see why you would perceive it that way.

    Speaking of the right to be left alone, even with a highly regulated activity like driving (dui roadblocks), DUI roadblocks are unconstitutional in WA because we don't merely requires searches and seizures to be reasonable. We explicitly recognize a right to PRIVACY. And stopping somebody, with no cause, such as in an DUI roadblock clearly infringes on their privacy.

    One of the things I love about my state is our recognized right to privacy and god knows things would be different if our national constitution explicitly recognized such a right.

    Back to the point of the thread... people who want cops held accountable (and there is considerable variance between agencies in how well they do this) need to read some arb reports and accept that failure to train is one of the biggest impediments to holding cops accountable that exist. And of course, the goal is to diminish the occurrence of misconduct in the first place vs. merely to punish when it happens. THAT is clearly achievable through proper training and policy setting. My agency is CALEA accredited and I give some props to CALEA for improvements in that area.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    SNIP Back to the point of the thread... people who want cops held accountable (and there is considerable variance between agencies in how well they do this) need to read some arb reports and accept that failure to train is one of the biggest impediments to holding cops accountable that exist. And of course, the goal is to diminish the occurrence of misconduct in the first place vs. merely to punish when it happens. THAT is clearly achievable through proper training and policy setting. My agency is CALEA accredited and I give some props to CALEA for improvements in that area.
    No. Unwillingness to hold cops accountable is one of the biggest impediments to holding cops accountable. Its first cousins to the Blue Wall of Silence.

    And, don't try to impress me with CALEA. I have personally witnessed them ignore police misconduct. They're a municipal insurance rate-reducer. They're not going to withhold their imprimatur under any but the very worst circumstances, if ever, because they don't get paid if the PD is not a client.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Thank you for confessing that your department doesn't hammer home the lesson of "no authority = no action". It doesn't take training to point out no authority. All it takes is asking the miscreant one question: what was your authority to seize the video (or whatever action is in question)? When he fails to give a 100% correct answer, he's suspended, fired, and/or told to hire his own attorney because the citizen is suing and neither the department, nor union will pay for an attorney.

    All you did was testify how many layers of mud and silt have been built up to protect police on this subject, how deeply entrenched and tolerated it really is.

    By the way, the two seminal events you cited that prompted police training--Newhall and FL--caused training in order to protect police. Kinda reveals your priorities doesn't it? Train police to protect them, not citizens rights, the subject under discussion.
    First of all, the improvements seen expost Newhall and FL aren't merely to protect police. Police often protect individuals (and yes I am well aware per the scotus we have no constitutional burden to do so. The reality is WE DO and I wear medals on my uniform recognizing incidents where I have and gone way beyond the call of duty in doing so, as do many other officers), but have difficulty doing so when they are dead or disabled. The more effectively police are able to engage bad guys and take THEM down, the more effectively they can also help protect the public.

    And "all it takes" to help ensure that the ofc's don't seize the video AND that they are held accountable IF AND WHEN they do, is to incorporate that into training and.or policy.

    That's my point. And again, it is better to prevent misconduct by teaching ofc's the right thing to do, and that's what policy and training does.

    My agency explicitly prohibits us from seizing video in such circumstances and offers very specific guidance and restrictions in what we can and can[t do

    What I am explaining is that IF training/policy is good, agencies CAN hold ofc's accountable and they cannot if it isn't there

    And you may not be a fan of labor rights, but I am and the union certainly will provide an attorney, that's a huge part of what we pay the union for.

    Note also, the citizen can sue, but given qualified immunity, if there is a failure to train, they certainly aint gettin' jack from the ofc.

    If ofc's are not trained that you can't seize video when a citizen film police (seize it as evidence), then it's quite understandable they would think you can. It's evidence and ofc's are trained in general to collect evidence. Without specific training/policy, it is entirely understandable an officer would think he has the right to seize it as evidence. WITH training/policy, THEN the ofc. has no excuse and can be held accountable for doing so.

    And that goes back to my main point. My agency HAS such policy. Does yours? Do you know? You SHOULD. And given a tiny bit of effort you can find out/ And If such training /policy is not in place in your agency, then YOU have the opower to effect change. It is better to prevent misconduct than to negligently let it happen because you never instituted policy and then try to punish after the fact (and good luck without training)

    cheers
    Last edited by PALO; 08-04-2013 at 07:50 PM.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    Terry is entirely consistent with freedom, as well as our constitution.
    <chuckle>

    I'm gonna make you regret, or at least be more careful about, trying to sneak in PR image comments. You're just giving me more opportunities to highlight the inconsistencies, and derail your own thread.


    Regarding your comment on Terry being consistent with freedom, yeah, right. /sarcasm.

    That's why so many Terry Stops don't result in arrests: because the police industry doesn't seize a large percentage of innocent people.

    Jeez. I've come across court statements that probable cause amounts to a 51% likelihood the suspect did it or has contraband, meaning that of the people seized or searched, the government is willing for almost half of them to be innocent. Terry makes an even lower standard.

    Tell us how exactly it is consistent with freedom when government is willing for well over half the people it seizes to be innocent?



    ETA: Oh, and are you ever gonna refute my analysis of Terry being invented out of thin air, or are you just going to go on making declarations without supporting them?
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-04-2013 at 07:53 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    SNIP And "all it takes" to help ensure that the ofc's don't seize the video AND that they are held accountable IF AND WHEN they do, is to incorporate that into training and.or policy.

    That's my point. And again, it is better to prevent misconduct by teaching ofc's the right thing to do, and that's what policy and training does.

    Oh, good. So, starting next week, we'll see your repeated memo's calling for revamping the training and discipline regime so it starts with: "if you don't know to a complete certainty that you have genuine legal authority, you can't act to seize someone or their property. The right thing to do is not seize anyone or their property unless you have complete certainty you have genuine legal authority to act"?

    That training point right there is very comprehensive; it would cover a lot of territory. Let you get rid of bad cops a lot faster, too. Heck, why not do something brilliant and have students sign off on having received that training during their academy.

    Do us a favor, and post those memo's here for us as you send them.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-04-2013 at 08:25 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    Attitudes like yours exhibit being part of the problem not part of the solution. Your local PD works for you and serves you. If you don't want to be a responsible member of your community and make an effort to improve the service provided to you, your loved ones, and your neighbors, that's certainly your choice.
    You do not need to educate cops ...

    I do not tell cops what the law is when they don't know the law. I'm not their momma.

    And video taping police is A-OK .. hardly being part of a problem.

    And what does "responsible member of your community" mean? I have no legal requirement to improve the services of the local PDs, do I?

    Important to attend meetings? What? You are free to do so and maybe you get something out of these meetings but I find most of them to be a joke, at least what I see posted on youtube.

    When cops step over the line, I push them back ... I do not explain my actions to them. I assume that they know the law (like they assume of us) and that they are knowingly violating the law (when they do). I need not have a debate about it.

    I cannot fix stupid.

  25. #25
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    PALO, I'm going to offer you some avuncular observations.

    It isn't that there are a lot of cop-haters here. There are probably a few, but not many. I am not one of them, and I don't think anyone you've been arguing with in various threads is, either. There are, however, a lot of members who are well-educated, observant, discerning, fiercely dedicated to liberty, and very vocal. When we identify problems with modern policing in this nation, we do not take umbrage with policing, per se, but with anything at all that offends liberty. It so happens, of course, that the mere existence of a constabulary is an ever-present threat to liberty, requiring vigilant oversight and action to prevent and correct steps toward tyranny. Just as the founders of this nation recognized that and worked to defend against that threat, we are quick to confront any rhetoric that might further cement the populace of this nation in apathy and complacency with regard to law enforcement.

    We are not hostile to police. We are hostile to any forbearance, particularly special forbearance, given to misconduct by a subset of ordinary citizens who have been granted privilege to hold extraordinary influence over the liberty of the populace. We are, by extension, hostile to any policies which in any way increase the likelihood of such misconduct. We are all too aware of the frequent and ubiquitous abuses perpetrated by law enforcement personnel, and have long since dismissed any notion that law enforcement personnel are any more noble, upstanding, or law-abiding than any other sort of citizen. Surrounded by a nation of reflexive "hero" worshipers, we insist that police receive no special recognition, much less allowance.

    When, then, you present an argument that, because hundreds of years of institutional abuses have resulted in a law enforcement industry rife with privilege, power, and protection, the rest of the populace should work extra hard to help that industry not make the problem worse, it should come as no surprise to anyone that we see not reasonable advice, but yet more egregious coddling of an industry that has a long-established record of willful recalcitrance. Do not ask us for yet more forbearance. As you so rightly point out, cops work for us. We demand accountability so long absent. Reminding us that that accountability is a pipe dream isn't going to win any admiration.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •