Police policies regarding OCers and people filming the police.

PALO · Aug 5, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
You are the one putting up lame BS. It is not the public's responsibility to babysit the police. If the police need to be babysat to act appropriately they need to be fired. If a cop breaks the law they should not pass go, not collect 200 dollars, and provide their own lube for the prison shower.

I despise crooked cops, don't put the blame on the public for their corruption, it is disgusting.

Again, you can try to explain away your lack of civic responsibility, your us v. them mentality and your preference that your local govt. be hit with an expensive lawsuit (it doesn't hurt the police. It hurts ultimtaely the taxpayers), than making a tiny effort to effect positive change.

Your attitude is much like the entrenched civil servant complaining that "it's not MY responsibility to do X" when of course the police are a part of the community and just as it is everybody's responsibility to keep an eye out for criminals, to call 911 if they see their neighbors house being broken into, etc. it IS the responsibility of community members to keep a watchful eye on the public servants in the PD *and* if they see problems, to SPEAK up and help FIX a problem vs. waiting for it to manifest itself in further harm.

The community members and leaders who have spoken to me, done ride-alongs with me, offered input at community meetings, done tours of the local precinct etc. really do exemplify how it shouldk work. - that the PD works in PARTNERSHIP with the community and that if we are deficient in some aspect, they damn well call us out on the problem and if it's fixable we do so.

If a citizen recognizes bad/injurious/unconstitutional policy practices etc. and DOESN'T make their concerns known imo they are as bad or worse than those that carry out such practices since UNLIKE some of the cops who very well innocently may think it's OK (god forbid) to make seizures of OCers or seize film from those filming critical police incidents as evidence, because you KNOW better and have zero desire to do anything about it.

We are not rocks. We are not islands. We are MEMBERS of a community and we have a civic duty to help our fellow man, etc. Those who cry "it's not my job" are just another brick in the wall, another part of a bigger problem

MY PD has training and policy in regards to OCers and filmers that are consistent with the law and also with the concept that we are an open govt. and respectful of civil rights.

It's been said we get the govt. we deserve and clearly people who view the cops as "the other" and who have no sense of responsibility for speaking up and helping the PD better itself for its own sake and the sake of people in the community... well, again YOU get the govt. you deserve

further, if you approach your PD and make your concerns known about these deficiencies either

1) they address the problem and the result is you now have a better pd AND those who OC or film in the future need not fear the police. win/win

or

2)they ignore the problem you are informing them of THEN any lawsuit will have a much BETTER chance of succeeding due to documented history they were advised of the deficiency and willfully ignored it. It's the difference between mere ignorance vs willful misconduct
cheers

WalkingWolf · Aug 5, 2013

I don't know where you get off thinking you can dictate to this forum or the public how things should be. The more post the more entitled your posts get. You attempt at chiding citizens in your opinion of how your fantasy world should be is most uncivil and citizens find this sense of entitlement insulting.

If you have cites backing up that it is citizens responsibility for YOU to follow the law, then please provide them. But don't attempt to lecture me with your bovine insulting scatology.

Citizen · Aug 5, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
Exactamundo!

CG and WW,

Don't lose sight of the core issue that he is working so very hard to fog up while pointing the blame at you all: cops don't need training not to act; all they need to know is that they don't know whether they have legal authority to detain OCers or seize video. If they can't mentally point to the exact legal authority, they have no business detaining or seizing.

Earlier in this thread, I invited him to write the memo urging that become a very emphasized training point: no authority = no compulsory action or seizures. He carefully ignored that.

So, here we have a self-described training officer who won't personally even acknowledge one of the most fundamental fundamentals, or even address the possibility of the solution. Kinda shows he's not really interested in reminding cops of the limitations on their authority and holding them to it.

Don't let him drag you too far around in circles--keep hammering the crucial points. Just ask him if he's written that training memo yet about "no authority = no action".

Maverick9 · Aug 5, 2013

PALO is trying to drown the 'truth' with his walls of text. Can't he just say succinctly what he intends to do about this problem of HIS officers not following the law?

He's got a hidden agenda, otherwise, he'd be on the side of law and order, not the side of ignorance of the law and obfuscation. The agenda is he enjoys his 'power' over the common folk. He, like some LEOs think it makes up for the low pay and disrespect from the top.

If he really cared to do something to help he'd be training officers to treat civilians (LACs) with kindness, as though they had stopped a family member. He'd be pushing for cops to stop lying to everyone. In fact it seems like some LEOs, given the option of lying to suspects, think that they get to lie in real life, maybe to uphold the 'blue code' or something. He talks about how he doesn't want it to be us vs them, but that's exactly what he wants. What he should be explaining is why he is still working in a corrupt system, not trying to convince people it's otherwise.

WalkingWolf · Aug 5, 2013

Just think of the ignorance of what he is claiming. That abuse is the fault of the public because they do not train the police. Keep in mind that most of the public has no police training, no law school, but yet he expects them to be responsible for the abuses that his officers bestow upon the public.

If it was not so sad it would be laughable. The problem is the public without training has a better grip on reality and the law and common sense then these boobs that get caught on camera breaking the law that a two year old could figure was against the law.

The training excuse is just that, an excuse to keep them out of jail. Break the law, go to jail, just like the rest of the public.

In the words of Jim Carey~~ "Stop breaking the law, AJOLE!"

PALO · Aug 5, 2013

Maverick9 said:
PALO is trying to drown the 'truth' with his walls of text. Can't he just say succinctly what he intends to do about this problem of HIS officers not following the law?

He's got a hidden agenda, otherwise, he'd be on the side of law and order, not the side of ignorance of the law and obfuscation. The agenda is he enjoys his 'power' over the common folk. He, like some LEOs think it makes up for the low pay and disrespect from the top.

If he really cared to do something to help he'd be training officers to treat civilians (LACs) with kindness, as though they had stopped a family member. He'd be pushing for cops to stop lying to everyone. In fact it seems like some LEOs, given the option of lying to suspects, think that they get to lie in real life, maybe to uphold the 'blue code' or something. He talks about how he doesn't want it to be us vs them, but that's exactly what he wants. What he should be explaining is why he is still working in a corrupt system, not trying to convince people it's otherwise.

Rubbish. What I am saying is that I find the following attitude reprehensible : the belief that it's better that bad policy stay in place in the PD so they can violate somebody's rights and then we can have lawsuits and criminal trials and firings and all that juicy stuff VERSUS the idea that if you know your local PD has deficient policy vis a vis OCing or filming the police, that one has civic duty to do SOMETHING

All one has to do is write an email to the chief. Heck, you can even do it anonymously if you fear "police harassment". Simply explain that the ofc's in the PD are (for example) stopping people for OCing which contravenes state law (or whatever the shortcoming is) and that the policy should be changed and if not, you are confident the agency will suffer civil liability, etc

There's another thread here where a guy sent an email to the Tacoma Library head honcho dude questioning their "no firearms" sign and guess what? THey had a meeting, they researched his complaint and... THEY CHANGED POLICY. Official police at the TPL is now that people can carry consistent with state law

*HE* took personal responsibility and effected positive change.

He could have just said - "Oh, I'll wait until somebody gets hassled by library staff for OCing!!! Then we can have neato keen lawsuits and maybe somebody can get fired and isn't that grand?!?"

But he didn't. For those who view the cops as an occupying army vs. a vital PART of the community, etc. I can completely understand where the OP is coming from. He admits it - he wants to see a lawsuit (which only harms the taxpayers ultimately) and cops getting fired and people getting in trouble etc.

He wants his pound of flesh. He WANTS bad policy to remain in place and consequences to come from it vs. giving the PD a chance to change for the better because (shades of civil service haughtiness) IT'S NOT *HIS* CONCERN TO WRITE PD POLICY.

This is america. A govt. of the people. by the people, etc. It's HIS goshdarn PD. He could correct an injustice but he'd rather see injustice continue so cops can get in trouble!!! Whee!

And again, as Ive explained and as I know from actually reading Arb reports and knowing firsthand ofc's who have been fired and rehired and how discipline works - if the agency has deficient policy and the ofc. acts consistent with policy and/or past accepted practice, he will NOT get in trouble and if he does, he will get it overturned by Arb's with backpay. Ofc's are responsible for acting in accordance with their training and policy.

The tacoma library thang is no different than the PD. They are both govt. agencies answerable to the people and there to serve the people.

Compare and contrast what the guy did in the Tacoma library issue vs. how the OP wants this issue "handled".

One person sees bad policy and he contacts the agency and politely addresses this bad policy and policy gets changed

Another person says "not my JOB" and wants to wait for the bad policy to manifest itself in actions such that cops can get sued and fired.

I know which choice represent responsible citizenship

WalkingWolf · Aug 5, 2013

The solution to the problem is the cops going to jail. If I am going to write anybody it will be prosecutors to bring charges so the ajoles can actually spend some time where the belong.

If a mere citizen knows it is wrong, then the criminal knows it is wrong, whether they wear a badge or not. To think that untrained citizens should set policy for police is the epitome of ignorance. The policy is already set in the law books. It is their responsibility to follow it.

Maverick9 · Aug 5, 2013

Sorry, 'Wall of Text' PALO, you're acting delusional, saying 'oh we'll fix it when citizens come tell us how to be responsible and have integrity, until then it's not our fault if we do stuff that's not allowed by law', but you're doing it UNDER COLOR OF AUTHORITY. See the problem?

But I think you know better. You're not fooling anyone here. I appreciate your appearance of 'propriety' but it's just a facade. Suggest, instead, you get real.

Push for cops who break the law to go to jail then come back and get respect and props. Until then sorry, you're part of the problem not part of the solution.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 5, 2013

Uh oh sounds like "social contract" theory raising it's head.

I am not born owing any duty to anyone civic or otherwise.

When it comes to government and its peons it is us vs. them...theoretically they are our employees in reality they are not. (If cops knew they were our employees they wouldn't need us to be involved so much they'd take great care to follow the rules we set to restrict them, and pay the consequences for not). More on us vs. them...who hires and employs civil servants? Politically elected officials who usually win by a minority of vote of the population , so if only half the people vote and this would be a high number in most areas and let's say for the sake of argument the politician wins by 60% (most don't it's usually a much closer race) That would be a minority of 30% percent of the people who get to claim they are the government. Now this is the case if you believe in what I consider the fake two party system (to me it's just a two headed beast). If you don't adhere to those believes you are even less of the "us" and more of the us vs them.

I think people have a right not vote, and they still have the right to complain and force the politicians and their peons to pay for their actions. People have the right not to give an illusion of consent to those who would rule over them. I actually like to refer to those who don't vote as the vote of no confidence, which is often the true majority vote. I also will never vote "the lesser of two evils" it still is evil.

The declaration of Independence and the constitution (even if it wasn't the intent of the framers) tells us we have the right to be governed by consent, I don't consent to governments that have roving bands of unconstitutional proactive police roaming around looking for malum prohibitum infractions that our contrary to our common law founding. It also tells us in the fourth that the government is not to infringe upon our right to feel secure. I don't feel secure when I am told by public employees hey it's your fault you aren't being left alone because you didn't get involved.

In a recent speech I gave I told the audience not to buy the lies that we can trust the government because we are the government, and then I listed an incomplete train of abuses including "I am not kicking in your door shooting your loved ones, and your pets with unconstitutional no-Knock warrants" this brings it right down to your local municipality.

Even if I was to run and be elected to office I would encourage my district to view it as an "us vs. them" situation that would be the best way to keep me in check, and I would be under no illusion that I could do what I want and then blame those in my district it's their fault because they didn't let me know!

PALO · Aug 5, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
Uh oh sounds like "social contract" theory raising it's head.

I am not born owing any duty to anyone civic or otherwise.

When it comes to government and its peons it is us vs. them...theoretically they are our employees in reality they are not. (If cops knew they were our employees they wouldn't need us to be involved so much they'd take great care to follow the rules we set to restrict them, and pay the consequences for not). More on us vs. them...who hires and employs civil servants? Politically elected officials who usually win by a minority of vote of the population , so if only half the people vote and this would be a high number in most areas and let's say for the sake of argument the politician wins by 60% (most don't it's usually a much closer race) That would be a minority of 30% percent of the people who get to claim they are the government. Now this is the case if you believe in what I consider the fake two party system (to me it's just a two headed beast). If you don't adhere to those believes you are even less of the "us" and more of the us vs them.

I think people have a right not vote, and they still have the right to complain and force the politicians and their peons to pay for their actions. People have the right not to give an illusion of consent to those who would rule over them. I actually like to refer to those who don't vote as the vote of no confidence, which is often the true majority vote. I also will never vote "the lesser of two evils" it still is evil.

The declaration of Independence and the constitution (even if it wasn't the intent of the framers) tells us we have the right to be governed by consent, I don't consent to governments that have roving bands of unconstitutional proactive police roaming around looking for malum prohibitum infractions that our contrary to our common law founding. It also tells us in the fourth that the government is not to infringe upon our right to feel secure. I don't feel secure when I am told by public employees hey it's your fault you aren't being left alone because you didn't get involved.

In a recent speech I gave I told the audience not to buy the lies that we can trust the government because we are the government, and then I listed an incomplete train of abuses including "I am not kicking in your door shooting your loved ones, and your pets with unconstitutional no-Knock warrants" this brings it right down to your local municipality.

Even if I was to run and be elected to office I would encourage my district to view it as an "us vs. them" situation that would be the best way to keep me in check, and I would be under no illusion that I could do what I want and then blame those in my district it's their fault because they didn't let me know!

Imo, and we obviously disagree on this, one does have civic duties. These are MORAL duties obviously, not legal duties. If you look out the window and you see your neighbor's house on fire, you have a civic duty to call 911 AT A MINIMUM

as for the person I was responding to, he has stated he would RATHER see the PD violate people's rights pursuant to faulty/lacking policy that he knows is deficient VERSUS simply sending an email, attending a community meeting etc. informing them of the lacking policy. It's not MERELY that he doesn't feel the civic duty to help protect people in his city from bad police policy AND the duty to help his police dept right a wrong with the incredibly inconvenient 5 minutes it would take to write an email. no it's not JUST that... it's that he admits he WANTS to see the PD engage in these bad acts SO that he can see them get sued and see officers get sued and/or fired.

He'd rather see that, than see the problem fixed and he clearly has the power to fix it.

Fortunately, most people I know in the community view us as part of the community. It's THEIR police dept, not MY police dept and they take personal responsibility for being vigilant and keeping an eye out for criminal activity and calling us if they see it. Some go the extra step and attend citizen academy or the ultimate is that some work for free as reserves

Either way, it should absolutely not be US v Them and in my agency, it's not. It's US or WE

WE (the police in partnership with the community) fighting crime, keeping neighborhoods safe, being proactive etc.

WE would be substantially less effective if we didn't have citizens calling suspicious vehicles, breakins, etc. and offering suggestions where policy is deficient etc.

I believe in a lot of moral duties. I think people have a moral duty to be respectful and polite towards their fellow man. Treat people with respect. Call for help (911) if they see somebody in need, call 911 if they see a crime in progress etc.

These are of course MORAL duties not legal duties. it is perfectly legal to do a phil collins and stand by and watch the guy drown without lending a helping hand OR calling for help

And I find it reprehensible idea that one would rather to want the police to violate somebody's rights so they can be sued vs. inform the PD of the deficiency so they can actually FIX the problem

I'm glad the Op Outed himself thusly, because it helps me to know from now on where he/she stands, that he/she feels no duty whatsoever to even send an email to inform THEIR PD (iow part of his community) that their policy is violative of rights and that he/she woul;d rather see the PD violate people's rights and see them sued than be an agent of change because god forbid he should have to write an email.

Granted, I come from the stance of public service, so yes I do think one has a moral duty to help his fellow man. Some will make it their career, but everybody can help

davidmcbeth · Aug 5, 2013

PALO is living in the 1950's I think. Today, citizens are much less likely to want to talk to police or otherwise interact with gov't officials.

Never heard people advise others not to talk to the police in the 1950's-1960's. Now we do. Why?

Because we have a heightened mistrust of our government.

PALO tries to make the argument about calling 911 of your neighbor's house is on fire .. it misses the mark completely and is an emotional plea like antis make. I'm not buying it, 'cause its worthless banter IMO.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 5, 2013

PALO said:
Imo, and we obviously disagree on this, one does have civic duties. These are MORAL duties obviously, not legal duties. If you look out the window and you see your neighbor's house on fire, you have a civic duty to call 911 AT A MINIMUM

as for the person I was responding to, he has stated he would RATHER see the PD violate people's rights pursuant to faulty/lacking policy that he knows is deficient VERSUS simply sending an email, attending a community meeting etc. informing them of the lacking policy. It's not MERELY that he doesn't feel the civic duty to help protect people in his city from bad police policy AND the duty to help his police dept right a wrong with the incredibly inconvenient 5 minutes it would take to write an email. no it's not JUST that... it's that he admits he WANTS to see the PD engage in these bad acts SO that he can see them get sued and see officers get sued and/or fired.

He'd rather see that, than see the problem fixed and he clearly has the power to fix it.

Fortunately, most people I know in the community view us as part of the community. It's THEIR police dept, not MY police dept and they take personal responsibility for being vigilant and keeping an eye out for criminal activity and calling us if they see it. Some go the extra step and attend citizen academy or the ultimate is that some work for free as reserves

Either way, it should absolutely not be US v Them and in my agency, it's not. It's US or WE

WE (the police in partnership with the community) fighting crime, keeping neighborhoods safe, being proactive etc.

WE would be substantially less effective if we didn't have citizens calling suspicious vehicles, breakins, etc. and offering suggestions where policy is deficient etc.

I believe in a lot of moral duties. I think people have a moral duty to be respectful and polite towards their fellow man. Treat people with respect. Call for help (911) if they see somebody in need, call 911 if they see a crime in progress etc.

These are of course MORAL duties not legal duties. it is perfectly legal to do a phil collins and stand by and watch the guy drown without lending a helping hand OR calling for help

And I find it reprehensible idea that one would rather to want the police to violate somebody's rights so they can be sued vs. inform the PD of the deficiency so they can actually FIX the problem

I'm glad the Op Outed himself thusly, because it helps me to know from now on where he/she stands, that he/she feels no duty whatsoever to even send an email to inform THEIR PD (iow part of his community) that their policy is violative of rights and that he/she woul;d rather see the PD violate people's rights and see them sued than be an agent of change because god forbid he should have to write an email.

Granted, I come from the stance of public service, so yes I do think one has a moral duty to help his fellow man. Some will make it their career, but everybody can help

It would be nice if that was the case in all communities, with the growing education and display of abuse of power by police more and more communities are not viewing that they are one with the police and that it is a "we" scenario, they still may rightfully call them mine or ours.

Who said government was a necessary evil ( I have doubts it is even necessary) if this is the case then I definitely would not want it to be part of that evil and would always assume it is not "us" when it comes to government.

I don't think the poster would rather see abuses by criminal cops and it be rectified I think he was emphasizing it is the duty for cops not to be criminals not for citizens to go out of the way to make those who are supposed to already have policies that are in line with the constitution and the law actually do.

Citizen · Aug 5, 2013

PALO said:
SNIP the belief that it's better that bad policy stay in place in the PD so they can violate somebody's rights and then we can have lawsuits and criminal trials and firings and all that juicy stuff VERSUS the idea that if you know your local PD has deficient policy vis a vis OCing or filming the police, that one has civic duty to do SOMETHING

So, PALO, have you written that training memo I've been asking you about? The one that calls for heavy focus on "no authority = no action."

You are a training officer, right? You seem to know all about the system and what is needed, right?

Citizen · Aug 5, 2013

Hey fellas,

The Wall-of-Text PALO cat is being disingenuous.

He's harping on us telling police if they have bad policy. Yet, he has to know that policies on search and seizure are vetted by attorney's. There's no way an official written policy is out of line with the law, unless maybe in some pohdunk little township or something. He's a training officer. He knows this.

Also, its too easy for police to follow the rule of acting only when they have authority. I've got a real life example.

Back in 2007 or so, some OCers were eating at a restaurant named Champs in Fairfax County, VA. Somebody called the fuzz. The fuzz arrived, and hung back unsure whether they had authority to do anything. A discussion among the cops occurred, removed from the OCers. The cops called a magistrate to check on whether OC was legal!!!!

Eventually, one or two cops came to the table and asked who was armed. But, that was it. No illegal actions by police.

Another time, a cop got a call from an informant who suspected seeing a bike being stolen. Even though he was given the license plate number of the vehicle that removed the bike, the cop said he couldn't go to the home of the vehicle owner because he had no victim.

So, three or four cops in the first example, and one cop in the second example, were able to apply the rules and recognize they were unsure or knew they had no authority to search or seize, and didn't.

This is not rocket science. It is too easy to understand. PALO's evasions--a training officer--reveal he's up to something else.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 5, 2013

Citizen said:
Another time, a cop got a call from an informant who suspected seeing a bike being stolen. Even though he was given the license plate number of the vehicle that removed the bike, the cop said he couldn't go to the home of the vehicle owner because he had no victim.

Nice great example of a cop being aware of common law principles and acting upon that knowledge!

davidmcbeth · Aug 5, 2013

Citizen said:
PALO's evasions--a training officer--reveal he's up to something else.

+1

carolina guy · Aug 5, 2013

PALO said:
Rubbish. What I am saying is that I find the following attitude reprehensible : the belief that it's better that bad policy stay in place in the PD so they can violate somebody's rights and then we can have lawsuits and criminal trials and firings and all that juicy stuff VERSUS the idea that if you know your local PD has deficient policy vis a vis OCing or filming the police, that one has civic duty to do SOMETHING

All one has to do is write an email to the chief. Heck, you can even do it anonymously if you fear "police harassment". Simply explain that the ofc's in the PD are (for example) stopping people for OCing which contravenes state law (or whatever the shortcoming is) and that the policy should be changed and if not, you are confident the agency will suffer civil liability, etc

There's another thread here where a guy sent an email to the Tacoma Library head honcho dude questioning their "no firearms" sign and guess what? THey had a meeting, they researched his complaint and... THEY CHANGED POLICY. Official police at the TPL is now that people can carry consistent with state law

*HE* took personal responsibility and effected positive change.

He could have just said - "Oh, I'll wait until somebody gets hassled by library staff for OCing!!! Then we can have neato keen lawsuits and maybe somebody can get fired and isn't that grand?!?"

But he didn't. For those who view the cops as an occupying army vs. a vital PART of the community, etc. I can completely understand where the OP is coming from. He admits it - he wants to see a lawsuit (which only harms the taxpayers ultimately) and cops getting fired and people getting in trouble etc.

He wants his pound of flesh. He WANTS bad policy to remain in place and consequences to come from it vs. giving the PD a chance to change for the better because (shades of civil service haughtiness) IT'S NOT *HIS* CONCERN TO WRITE PD POLICY.

This is america. A govt. of the people. by the people, etc. It's HIS goshdarn PD. He could correct an injustice but he'd rather see injustice continue so cops can get in trouble!!! Whee!

And again, as Ive explained and as I know from actually reading Arb reports and knowing firsthand ofc's who have been fired and rehired and how discipline works - if the agency has deficient policy and the ofc. acts consistent with policy and/or past accepted practice, he will NOT get in trouble and if he does, he will get it overturned by Arb's with backpay. Ofc's are responsible for acting in accordance with their training and policy.

The tacoma library thang is no different than the PD. They are both govt. agencies answerable to the people and there to serve the people.

Compare and contrast what the guy did in the Tacoma library issue vs. how the OP wants this issue "handled".

One person sees bad policy and he contacts the agency and politely addresses this bad policy and policy gets changed

Another person says "not my JOB" and wants to wait for the bad policy to manifest itself in actions such that cops can get sued and fired.

I know which choice represent responsible citizenship

Your examples ONLY work where a department and government are WILLING to accept the input of the "common man". Barring that, the only other way is by getting one branch of the government to force another to do its job. This is called petitioning to redress a grievance...you know...the 1st Amendment...

Sorry...there is NO obligation to spend all your free time to FORCE the government to do its job. They are paid, have attorneys on staff and have the power of taxation to fund their operations.

Your examples rely too much on the "chain of command" and working inside a system that too often is uninterested and unwilling to change because it benefits a select few.

carolina guy · Aug 5, 2013

PALO said:
Imo, and we obviously disagree on this, one does have civic duties. These are MORAL duties obviously, not legal duties. If you look out the window and you see your neighbor's house on fire, you have a civic duty to call 911 AT A MINIMUM

as for the person I was responding to, he has stated he would RATHER see the PD violate people's rights pursuant to faulty/lacking policy that he knows is deficient VERSUS simply sending an email, attending a community meeting etc. informing them of the lacking policy. It's not MERELY that he doesn't feel the civic duty to help protect people in his city from bad police policy AND the duty to help his police dept right a wrong with the incredibly inconvenient 5 minutes it would take to write an email. no it's not JUST that... it's that he admits he WANTS to see the PD engage in these bad acts SO that he can see them get sued and see officers get sued and/or fired.

He'd rather see that, than see the problem fixed and he clearly has the power to fix it.

Fortunately, most people I know in the community view us as part of the community. It's THEIR police dept, not MY police dept and they take personal responsibility for being vigilant and keeping an eye out for criminal activity and calling us if they see it. Some go the extra step and attend citizen academy or the ultimate is that some work for free as reserves

Either way, it should absolutely not be US v Them and in my agency, it's not. It's US or WE

WE (the police in partnership with the community) fighting crime, keeping neighborhoods safe, being proactive etc.

WE would be substantially less effective if we didn't have citizens calling suspicious vehicles, breakins, etc. and offering suggestions where policy is deficient etc.

I believe in a lot of moral duties. I think people have a moral duty to be respectful and polite towards their fellow man. Treat people with respect. Call for help (911) if they see somebody in need, call 911 if they see a crime in progress etc.

These are of course MORAL duties not legal duties. it is perfectly legal to do a phil collins and stand by and watch the guy drown without lending a helping hand OR calling for help

And I find it reprehensible idea that one would rather to want the police to violate somebody's rights so they can be sued vs. inform the PD of the deficiency so they can actually FIX the problem

I'm glad the Op Outed himself thusly, because it helps me to know from now on where he/she stands, that he/she feels no duty whatsoever to even send an email to inform THEIR PD (iow part of his community) that their policy is violative of rights and that he/she woul;d rather see the PD violate people's rights and see them sued than be an agent of change because god forbid he should have to write an email.

Granted, I come from the stance of public service, so yes I do think one has a moral duty to help his fellow man. Some will make it their career, but everybody can help

(*chuckle*) I am expecting to hear some people singing "kum by ya..."

WalkingWolf · Aug 5, 2013

carolina guy said:
(*chuckle*) I am expecting to hear some people singing "kum by ya..."

He hasn't figured out yet this is not policeone.

PALO · Aug 5, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
He hasn't figured out yet this is not policeone.

I've never posted at policeone, spanx.

That aside, I find it sad that some people are such bitter bigots that they would rather see people's rights being abused and subsequent lawsuits and discipline (probably not, agaiin due to training and past practice under CBA) than take any responsibility whatsoever for effecting positive change to PREVENT those rights abuses from occurring.

Rational people recognize that the police are public servants and that people at large in the community should and do (if they are interested in helping their fellow man) engage in taking a role to protect their neighbors and loved ones from criminals and providing law enforcement with information about problem areas that need addressing, etc.

Fortunately, our communities are filled with people who DO want to help their fellow man, who DO want to see their PD follow the law and the constitution, and who do work with law enforcement to help make their communities safer.

I have nothing but empathy for the kind of pettiness and bigotry that would lead one to HOPE for rights abuses to continue

Out in the real world, responsible community members are doing something to make a positive difference.

cheers

Police policies regarding OCers and people filming the police.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member