Pelican Parts Forums - Another execution-by-police

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - Another execution-by-police (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/586378-another-execution-police.html)

Will somebody follow this one, please. I am praying to God the shooter did not have a picture of his father on the door of his locker...

NYPD officer mistakenly shoots drug suspect's dad

This a worst-of-the-worst parody ad.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1295745315.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Bob (Post 5799706)

Well said....but are you willing to give an opinion on the issuance of a "no knock warrant" based on what type of search and the description of the suspect?

Based upon the limited information, it does not SEEM to fit the criteria for a "no-knock" warrant. There must be some additional information that is not available. For a judge to sign off on this type of warrant, there has to be some definite danger factors.

David

Let's hope so. Otherwise the criteria is getting pretty weak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverwhaletail (Post 5800885)

It has existed for at least 21 years. It is called EWS in California. Early Warning System. Every State has some form of it and has for decades.

You have an opinion on everything and knowledge of nothing.

The problem is, it's administered by police. Most outside of the the law enforcement community agree it's been an unqualified failure. From just one major California city, but even the most cursory research shows this is endemic across California:

SFGate: The Use of Force

One particularly interesting article from the above reference:

State law protects officers from disclosure of complaints

In California, unlike much of the country, police disciplinary records and citizen complaints against officers are kept secret by law.

By contrast, at least 30 states allow partial or complete public access to police personnel records.

But here, where the disciplinary records of numerous professions -- including doctors, lawyers and accountants -- are readily accessible to consumers, the public is largely kept in the dark, even when officers have a continuing pattern of misconduct.

The confidentiality law was enacted a quarter-century ago at the urging of law enforcement lobbying organizations.

"Police in California and some states have had the political clout to have most of their records closed,'' said Samuel Walker, a leading expert on police discipline who recently wrote "The New World of Police Accountability."

"That's the only explanation for it,'' Walker said.

Law enforcement officers in California, as well as 13 other states, have an additional shield, a special set of legal protections when they are being investigated by their own departments.

Called the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, the almost 30-year-old state law imposes limits on investigative procedures, internal hearings and punishment.

One important provision requires that disciplinary charges or other punitive actions be lodged against an officer within one year of the time of complaint. The legislation was created in response to departments' overzealous internal investigations, police say.

Critics of the statute of limitations say disciplinary investigations can be complicated and take more than a year to complete. In San Francisco, between 1996 and 2004, 129 cases were dismissed because the Office of Citizen Complaints or the Police Department failed to meet the deadline.

"It was controversial providing all these rights,'' said Hank Hernandez, a former Los Angeles police officer who helped draft the law. He is general counsel for the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

"We had to come up with a lot of horror stories about departments holding officers incommunicado for many hours, not disclosing charges against them.''

Police officers and other law enforcement representatives, who lobbied for their special protections, say they are entitled to singular rights because their work is dangerous, their profession unique.

"No other public employees have the awesome power that the law grants a police officer,'' Hernandez said. "We need a police force that is motivated to engage the criminal element."

If the public "doesn't support officers," he said, "if officers aren't treated fairly, what's to motivate them to go down the alley? What you would have is a heck of an increase in crime."

In 1978, a confidentiality section was created in the state penal code after a state court decision expanded defendants' rights to obtain citizen complaints against officers.

Some law enforcement agencies, in response, tried to protect their officers by destroying complaint reports, in what legislative documents described as "massive record-shredding campaigns." That made it impossible to prosecute some cases.

Powerful police unions "aggressively pushed" for the measure to keep the records confidential, in return for preserving them, said John Crew, former director of the American Civil Liberties Union's police practices project, which monitors Bay Area police departments for violations of constitutional rights.

"Why should you have a privacy right to how you hit someone with a baton in public?" he said. "To do the very delicate job of police, we delegate certain powers to use in our name. But that delegation of power isn't unlimited. If they misuse the powers, it has a huge ramification.

"The idea that how an officer exercises those powers should be secret is contrary to a free society."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brando (Post 5800311)

Such unprofessional conduct has been the norm here in SoCal for some time... That myself and others record officers during any interactions. A recording is an honest witness.

You need to be careful; in your state, recording an interaction with a police officer without his consent violates the officer's right to 'privacy', and you can be arrested. Fun, huh?

In addition, if you record let's say, your traffic stop with an officer, and you set your cell phone on the passenger seat and record the interaction, and he makes any mistakes or accidentally kicks your ass or something your recording is inadmissable due to the fact that you did not gain 'consent' from the cop. Then when the dashcam video gets accidentally erased, you're out of luck.

Online Posting of Motorcyclist's Traffic Stop Sets Off Debate on Wiretap Law - FoxNews.com

Maryland is one of 12 states that requires two-party consent, meaning all parties must agree before a recording is made if a conversation occurs where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

The other states are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.

Artist Could Face 15 Years In Prison For Recording His Own Arrest
"The state is one of twelve that has so-called "two-party consent" eavesdropping laws. This means that audio recording any conversation is illegal unless all parties to the conversation consent.

All but three of those states make an important exception to that law: the recording of police conversations in the public way. Only Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois deem such recordings illegal, and the Maryland attorney general recently issued an opinion suggesting that taping the cops shouldn't be prosecuted."

Unions exist to defend the interests of its members against those that employ those members. This situation can create an inherent conflict of interest under normal circumstances. Normally, it is in the interest of the union to work with the employer, if not both parties suffer. In the case of police unions however the employer is the public they serve and the conflict of interest can have serious repercussions indeed. The question is, how can we the public limit the political influence police unions wield and allow job protection for its members?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gogar (Post 5802587)

You need to be careful; in your state, recording an interaction with a police officer without his consent violates the officer's right to 'privacy', and you can be arrested. Fun, huh? [...]

Gogar, negative. Law Enforcement have no expectation of privacy while working in public. The case cited was NOT in CA and has no precedence in CA. The law referenced pertains to private communication between parties. Ex: telephone, cell-phone, e-mail, etc. By definition wire-tapping cannot occur in a place (such as a public area) where there is no expectation of privacy.

In fact: Here is a discussion on the very subject in another forum with citation to CA PC §632:

Quote:

632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment...

(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

You need to 'shop his finger on the trigger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brando (Post 5801743)

This a worst-of-the-worst parody ad.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1295745315.jpg

Here's a good one; the cops are beating the crap out of a guy, and the crowd rushes in and beats the crap out of the cops.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Qdxh-KaSBSg" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

another local story, here in utah. this is the same department where the officer went postal on me for passing on a double yellow. a woman is punched five times and tazed. in this case, running from the police might not have been a good idea. however, i am not sure that getting tazed and punched in the head after being corralled was really necessary.

UHP trooper on paid leave after punching woman 5 times - ksl.com

Ever wonder why Cops react they way they do???

Quote:

Four Detroit police officers shot inside Northwest District precinct headquarters
DETROIT (WXYZ) - Four Detroit police officers were shot inside the Northwest District headquarters. The district office is located near Warwick and Plymouth and houses both the 6th and 8th precincts.

We're told a man walked into the lobby and opened fire with a shotgun during roll call at about 4:30 p.m. He was killed by police.

Four Detroit police officers shot inside Northwest District precinct headquarters

You don't want to get shot by the law, don't hang out with meth heads & gang bangers...
This rings very true..
Chris Rock - How not to get your ass kicked by the police!
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XujaB4HkBgE" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

actually, byron, i think you got this one backwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brando (Post 5802986)

Thanks. How about MA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gogar (Post 5804105)

Thanks. How about MA?

Not sure... I'm not familiar with MA's laws or legal precedence set by case... Luckily here we have leginfo.ca.gov available for all State/County/City codes.

Again, if Police tell you to do something, do, or like the golfer and get your ass shot..

Here is another reason POlice don't give give perbs a chance and shouldn't...

Latest Original & Breaking Crime News and Analysis from AOL News

Quote:

Police: Man Kills 2 Fla. Police Officers in Shootout

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- A man hiding in the attic of a home opened fire on law enforcement officers trying to arrest him Monday morning, sparking an intense firefight that left two police officers dead and a U.S. marshal wounded, police said.

The suspect remained barricaded inside the house where the shooting happened, Police Chief Chuck Harmon said. He said more than 100 rounds were fired during the shootout.

Chris O'Meara, AP
A police officer stands near rescue vehicles about a block from where a U.S. marshal and two St. Petersburg police officers were shot Monday in St. Petersburg, Fla."He was somebody we wanted to get off the streets, " Harmon said. "Who expects to walk into a house and get gunfire from the attic?"

The marshal and officers had come to arrest the suspect on aggravated battery charges. Harmon would not identify the suspect or the dead officers.

When they arrived at the house, they were told by a woman that the suspect was in the attic. The three were shot as they tried to get him out, police spokesman Michael Puetz said.

Police used a vehicle to punch a hole in the wall to get to one of the officers who later died, Puetz said.

The woman from the house is safe and with officers, he said.

Monday's shooting is the latest in a string of shootings of police officers and comes four days after two Miami-Dade County detectives were killed by a murder suspect they were trying to arrest. That suspect was killed by another detective. Their funeral is Monday.

On Sunday, a man opened fire inside a Detroit police precinct, wounding four officers including a commander before he was shot and killed by police. Authorities said the gunman walked in just after 4 p.m. and fired indiscriminately. The officers' injuries were not considered life-threatening, said Police Chief Ralph Godbee.

And on Monday, a Lincoln City, Ore., police officer was critically wounded when he was shot during a traffic stop. Oregon State Police said the officer had pulled the suspect over for speeding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racerbvd (Post 5804735)

Of course you are correct, Byron, but this discussion is about the instances where the police do not give the "perp" any chance whatsoever to comply before shooting, or where the police used an absolutely inappropriate, over the top level of force on a non-violent offender. Quite simply put, if an innocent man winds up dead, the police f*cked up. Rather seriously.

Court rules Rahm not a resident...

Well it appears Chicagos mayoral race is wide open again...FOP and union BEWARE!...