SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a US federal civil rights lawsuit, a Connecticut man has shared footage to bolster his claims that police illegally confronted the pedestrian because he was filming one of them. Authorities seized Michael Picard's camera and his permitted pistol, and the officers involved then accidentally recorded themselves allegedly fabricating charges against the man.
Picard's police encounter began as he was protesting a sobriety checkpoint while lawfully carrying a handgun in a holster. The plaintiff often protests near sobriety checkpoints in the Hartford region and is known by locals and police in the area, according to court documents. "Cops Ahead: Keep Calm and Remain Silent," read the 3-foot-by-2-foot sign Picard held up to motorists ahead of the checkpoint in West Hartford last year.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @07:50PM
around law enforcement, don't be surprised to get your butt slammed to the ground.
I think most people learn that by the time they're 10 years old (from conversation, not first-hand experience).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:12PM
Try actually reading the article.
According to the lawsuit, trooper John Barone walked up to Picard and said "someone called in" a complaint about a man "waving a gun and pointing it at people." It's a claim the lawsuit alleges is fabricated. The lawsuit also states that Barone "swatted" the digital camera out of Picard's hands and onto the ground, at which point the battery dislodged. Barone seized Picard's pistol and "took the handgun permit out of Picard's pants pocket," according to the suit.
So the guy is just standing nearby with a sign when the cops start with him. That bastard, using his right to peacefully protest!
Michael Picard's camera
P.S: There's a TNG joke in here somewhere...What tickets can we give him? Make it so!
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:23PM
And it's ironic, that the very device they were trying to keep him from recording them (doing nothing wrong at all) with will be used as evidence against them.*
If they had just left the guy alone, there wouldn't have been a problem for anyone.
*assuming they don't manage to "accidentally lose it" as usual
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Funny) by SrLnclt on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:33PM
During the interrogation after his arrest, Picard repeatedly told the cops "There are four lights."
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:46PM
That's cool bro do you have like a list of tired old shit that gets modded funny because you should totally make a list and post it on your blog and I wanna subscribe to your blog with the list of funny shit bro.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @01:19PM
Dear god, my sides man! Well played!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:13PM
(bootlicker-like typing detected)
in a modern free country that respects citizens' rights, no one should fear a police encounter if they are not doing anything wrong.
this guy did NOTHING WRONG and yet the thugs with guns conspired (not allegedly, but FACTUALLY, recorded on god damned video!) to break the law by lying and synthesizing false charges.
if we cared about balancing this unbalanced relationship between cops and humans, we would give JAIL TIME to those bad cops and after jail time, they lose all rights to enter any government or authority position. for life.
I'd go farther: make them register like sex offenders and go door to door in their neighborhoods to explain why they were let go from the force.
we'd solve this problem in 1 day if we adopted a TOUGH ON (POLICE) CRIME stance.
also, make cops liable for when they break the law, make them pay their own insurance and put the pain points back on them, personally (not their dept.) when they do wrong things.
under color of law, they can kill you and get away with it. for such significant powers should come equally harsh penalties when they break-bad, so to speak.
the fact that we continually tolerate bad cops means we are not tough on REAL crime.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @09:59PM
> (not allegedly, but FACTUALLY, recorded on god damned video!)
Please humor my inner autistic: it wasn't video, the camera was pointed at the sky, but it did record their conspiring on audio.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @10:07PM
My humor is not amused :P
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 22 2016, @11:51PM
Please humor my inner autistic: it wasn't video, the camera was pointed at the sky, but it did record their conspiring on audio.
So it was video.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday September 23 2016, @12:58AM
No, it was audio. The video didn't record anything relevant.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 23 2016, @04:36AM
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday September 22 2016, @10:09PM
Can't mod you up any higher, so you get my moral support!
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday September 22 2016, @10:27PM
This, so much this. There is way more harm caused to society by thuggish cops - in tens to even hundreds of thousands of them - than by people who send photos of their junk to the girlfriend they've been legally shagging for years.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:17PM
Straw man. How was he being a dick? Whatever you think it might be, that doesn't justify police fabricating charges.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:24PM
Home of the brave?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Friday September 23 2016, @01:07AM
Unless you're a police officer. Then you're a cowardly piece of shit that will shoot at your shadow, or any black man that looks remotely threatening. Of which, being black apparently seems threatening enough in of itself.
Seriously. They're cowards at this point. One of the last incidents in the past few months was a cop that shot a dude in the head simply because he had the audacity to leave his apartment complex in a motor vehicle. That was such a threat to the cop that pulled into the apartment complex looking for someone, that the officer simply had to shoot him in the head sitting in his front seat. Why? The cop felt threatened by a black man in a vehicle leaving the apartment complex to such an extent that a quick head shot was warranted. At least this particular cop has been charged with murder, and rightly so.
They're no brave cops left in America it seems.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Friday September 23 2016, @04:25AM
I dunno, I called the cops on the shitbag who was abusing his girlfriend next door back when I lived in Soulard, and I got to watch a (black, if it matters) cop fucking drop said (white, also, if it matters) shitbag on the pavement outside my front door for trying to walk away when he was talking to him. That shit made up for the fact that I was up until 3 am-ish in the morning answering questions about the situation.
Of course, now I live out in the 'burbs and since there's no crime a couple week out of date sticker on your plates means two patrol cars and a paddywagon show up behind you for a 'polite' warning, but I'm a nice white guy, so at least I don't get shot or arrested over it, I suppose. It's weird, the actual city cops in St. Louis seem like genuinely stand up guys, and I feel that's really under-reported. Anywhere outside is insufferable if you're white, and outright dangerous if you're black. I look forward to moving to further desolate places.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:28PM
Can we get a -1 Factually Wrong mod
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:45PM
We actually discussed that a while back and decided it would get massively overused and used in place of a comment correcting the record, which is always better than a mod.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by SunTzuWarmaster on Thursday September 22 2016, @09:08PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @01:30PM
How about a 0-score mod or a -0.1?
Disagree mods don't get used very often, so I don't know if it'd be any use.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 23 2016, @01:44PM
Not a terrible idea and very easy to implement. Disagree gets used pretty regularly, just not as regularly as I'd like, and people usually comment as well since the mod didn't change the score of the comment.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:30PM
Did you read? This guy was peaceful. Law enforcement acted like d***s. And then fabricated charges. And if not caught would have been happy to commit perjury in court. Who exactly are the bad guys here? The cops.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:35PM
there's even a known term for when cops lie in court:
testi-lying.
sad. so sad. are we a banana republic? seems we are jealous of other shithole countries where this is assumed to be SOP.
there was a recent news article about a judge ruling it was OK for black folks to run from cops, especially if they are not breaking any laws. the reasoning is: encounters with cops can end your life and we, now, all pretty much recognize this. you used to be told to avoid talking to them, but, shit, I'd avoid even being NEAR them, at this point. I'm a white guy but I'd probably 'run from cops' if I saw them nearby. they are loose canons and if you say the wrong thing, even innocently, you could end up in a world of hurt. not worth it.
don't talk to cops and, now, don't even risk being NEAR them.
what HAS the USA come to? dammit. this is not the country I was raised in; I don't recognize my home anymore. its like someone swapped out our good principles while we were all sleeping.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:44PM
> this is not the country I was raised in
Yes it is. But your eyes are a bit more open.
There's a very long list of facts to corroborate that these things didn't start yesterday.
> I don't recognize my home anymore
Understandable, since the crude spotlight makes things look very different from the pink filter that was (and still is for many) the norm.
> its like someone swapped out our good principles while we were all sleeping.
Don't worry, hollywood will soon get back to KoolAid mode.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:50PM
You're mostly right but it is getting worse.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @10:02PM
> You're mostly right but it is getting worse.
No. Its getting better. In large part due to the spotlight.
You only think its getting worse because it used to always be in the shadows and no one took the accusations seriously.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday September 22 2016, @10:57PM
Interesting but wrong. Shining a light on corruption used to make the rats scurry for cover. Now we have the most corrupt politician to ever run for president on the ballot, taking out witnesses against her wholesale and people are still going to vote for her even though they know this. They don't even have to hide the corruption anymore because they genuinely believe there's fuck all we can do about it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @05:33PM
Trump is killing people? You'd think that would be making the daily news cycle!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Francis on Friday September 23 2016, @01:11AM
I'm sorry, but I'm with Buzzie on this one. Just look at Clinton. They caught her read handed taking huge amounts of money from private parties for "speeches' and she refuses to disclose the substance of any of those speeches. WTF can she possibly be saying that's worth seven figures? If it's a speech that's so brilliant that it justifies that sort of a price tag, then she should release it for us all to marvel at.
Not to mention that she avoided being prosecuted for mishandling classified materials any normal person handling it in that kind of inept way would have been indicted at the very least. The fact that they didn't even try to get an indictment speaks volumes about the corruption. She's fundraised for all sorts of politicians and now she's above the law.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @03:10AM
I see the Clintrolls are out again today. She can suck my cock.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @09:16AM
I'm sorry, but that's Monica's job.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @04:25PM
> this is not the country I was raised in
Yes it is. But your eyes are a bit more open.
There's a very long list of facts to corroborate that these things didn't start yesterday.
> I don't recognize my home anymore
Understandable, since the crude spotlight makes things look very different from the pink filter that was (and still is for many) the norm.
> its like someone swapped out our good principles while we were all sleeping.
Don't worry, hollywood will soon get back to KoolAid mode.
I know it makes you feel good and smug to have been right all along (I'm guilty of that, including in this post), but this kind of patronizing tone does nothing to help, and drives people away. This person is reflecting upon new facts and this is an opinion changing opportunity. If you talk down to them, insult them, or generally offend them they'll just turn away.
Rather than just dismissing them as things "everybody knows [xkcd.com]," it's better to give them more information. You can talk about how the various US agencies monitored Muhammad Ali, Martin Luther King Jr., and numerous others [wikipedia.org]; or the murders of the Mississippi civil rights workers [wikipedia.org]; or the practice of parallel construction [wikipedia.org]; or the practice of asset forfeiture [wikipedia.org]. You can even give examples, such as how the SWAT team killed the dog of the mayor of a city [wikipedia.org], or the numerous police killings [theguardian.com] in the US.
If you give actual examples of things the person didn't know in a neutral way, you are more likely enlighten them to what they had previously been ignorant of... you may even "convert" them such that they can help in the future.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday September 23 2016, @04:45PM
> I know it makes you feel good and smug to have been right all along
No, it makes me angry that people who have had all the world's information at their fingertips for well over a decade are still falling for basic "our system is the best/strongest/bravest, the other are jealous retarded idiots" blinders-on worldviews. And I'm not just talking about an excessively vocal minority of a specific country.
So many humans are dumb and selfish, yours truly included, that it's amazing we ever get to know about toxic clouds shimmering in the sun on Titan.
Point taken on educating rather than mocking. Have a +1.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday September 23 2016, @01:54PM
testi-lying
That is what is occurring when police are giving their sworn testi-phony.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @09:45PM
The cops are doing exactly what they're supposed to -- the fault lies with the legislators who pass such a ludicrous assortment of catch-all "crimes" so that anyone can be charged with *something*.
There isn't anything *wrong* in what Picard was doing, but there were things that were unlawful. You pretty much can't exist without being in violation of something. *That's* the root problem.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday September 23 2016, @01:03AM
Absolutely and combine that with the practice of piling on whole lists of crimes that could possibly be applicable to force a plea bargain and I'm not even sure how that represents justice.
If you make the list long enough, chances are you'll be able to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty of at least one of the crimes they're being charged with. The fact that an Alford plea is even a thing speaks volumes about how little they care about justice in the legal system.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:32PM
So you're saying they're just like the wise guys now?
(Score: 2) by ledow on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:36PM
In the "land of the free" you think you shouldn't be a dick around police?
It's good advice.
But in my country, the police know that unless you're causing a real nuisance or committing an offence, you're not worth their time and wasting time on you is precisely why people complain about police not doing their job - why waste time on someone doing no harm when you're on the beat and real crimes are happening?
However, interfering with a police operation is a dickish thing to do. In some countries telling people about a sobreity checkpoint would be akin to obstructing the course of justice, no different to the way you can't alert other drivers to a radar speed check up ahead.
But the real dickish thing? Living in a police state where police confiscate recording devices for no reason, and then fabricate charges, and it not generating utter outrage from the public when it gets on the news, and then claiming OTHER countries are police states where if things of that kind make the news they end up with sacked people very quickly and are considered unacceptable for a police force. Rather than "Oh, just don't be a dick around them".
Land of the free... Free to live under any delusion they like.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Taibhsear on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:53PM
In some countries telling people about a sobriety checkpoint would be akin to obstructing the course of justice, no different to the way you can't alert other drivers to a radar speed check up ahead.
In America, informing or reminding people of their constitutional rights is in no way obstruction of justice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @10:43PM
So obstructing the police checkpoint is OK then? What if a drunk driver saw the "Cops ahead" sign and turned around and hit a school bus full of children resulting in mass deaths?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Francis on Friday September 23 2016, @01:07AM
Warning people of checkpoints is constitutionally protected free speech. Motorcyclists regularly use hand signals to warn each other about cops in the area. And AAA was originally started to warn motorists of speed traps.
It would be unfortunate if people were killed by a drunk driver trying to avoid a check point, but that's a rarity. Most drunk drivers are nowhere near checkpoints when they kill people. I doubt that a scenario like you're describing would rise above statistical noise.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Friday September 23 2016, @08:40AM
In fact, checkpoints are on Constitutionally shaky ground themselves since there exists no probable cause.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday September 23 2016, @04:27PM
That's also true.
Personally, I have mixed feelings about it, as I hate sharing the road with drunks, but I'm not really sure they're particularly effective other than as a scare tactic and it is a bit questionable in terms of the constitutionality of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @04:45PM
"a bit questionable in terms of the constitutionality of it."
checkpoints are not "a bit questionable", you bootlicker.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday September 24 2016, @12:45AM
So, you think they're completely acceptable then?
Bottom line here is that they are typically avoidable and they do still have to establish that they have the right for further searches. They don't just stop a line of cars and go through them with a fine tooth comb for violations.
So yes, they are questionable. It all comes down to how they're handled. Publish a notification that they're going to happen and where they're going to be and there's no particular problem.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday September 23 2016, @04:51PM
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday September 23 2016, @08:06PM
If the announce that they're going to violate your forth amendment rights in advance, it's fine. Using that logic, they could suspend the Constitution rights of everyone living in a particular city, as long as they give advance notice. If you continue to live in said city, you are implicitly consenting to having your rights violated.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday September 23 2016, @04:19AM
You're saying he was obstructing a checkpoint because a crazy "what if" scenario could have happened? Madness.
Even if that situation did occur, it would be the drunk driver's fault, not the fault of the protester. If we use the logic that you are responsible for someone else's actions, you could just as easily say that the police are at fault for the deaths of the drunk driver's victims. If the police hadn't set up an unconstitutional DUI checkpoint, the protester wouldn't have needed to be there and the drunk driver wouldn't have gotten startled. This logic makes free speech impossible, because you can always be blamed if someone reacts foolishly to your speech.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by http on Thursday September 22 2016, @09:12PM
Sobriety checkpoints are 100% unconstitutional in the US, and pretty much unsupportable in any country with Brtitish Common Law as a starting point.
Driving down a particular road does not constitue probable cause. Erratic driving does.
Nowhere on your license does it say "you have to stop for police because you have this license". Now, I can't say for sure, not being an American, but I'm fairly sure that nowhere in the application and testing process is such a clause mentioned.
Please, educate me as to the process of getting a driver's license in the USA.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 22 2016, @10:40PM
From wikipedia's "Random checkpoint" page:
"""
The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment." Dissenting justices argued against this conclusion. Justice Stevens argued that the checkpoints were not reasonably effective, writing that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion argued that the police had failed to show that the checkpoint seizures were a necessary tool and worth the intrusion on individual privacy. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," he stated.
"""
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday September 23 2016, @04:23AM
Whilst you have the right to disagree with the SCOTUS, they still technically have a little bit more authority than you on such matters.
They have authority, but they're still wrong. They should be stripped of their authority for not only failing to defend the highest law of the land, but actively opposing it. It is not acceptable for judges to arbitrarily make exceptions for the government so that our constitutional rights can be ignored. It seems to me that they don't actually care about what the Constitution says; they are authoritarians at heart and will use whatever twisted logic they have to use in order to grant the government the powers they want it to have, regardless of what the Constitution says.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday September 23 2016, @08:45AM
Agreed. The 4th amendment is written in the absolute. It offers no leeway for compelling interests of the state or for minimal intrusiveness.
(Score: 5, Informative) by JNCF on Thursday September 22 2016, @09:09PM
[If you act like a d***] around law enforcement, don't be surprised to get your butt slammed to the ground.
Not that it would excuse their behavior, but do you even know that he was acting like a dick? He was taking pictures of them, and they illegally took his camera. From the video, it looks like the conversation starts with the cop saying "it's illegal to take my picture" while grabbing his camera. Then they had to justify that action, so they made up fake charges. The citizen was being polite the whole time, and they didn't slam his butt into ground. As others have pointed out, you clearly haven't even examined the evidence. Allow me to spoon-feed it to you. Excerpts from video (emphasis added to draw tl;dr eyes to blatant evidence of copspiracy):
Trooper First Class John Barone: It's illegal to take my picture.
Michael Picard: No it isn't.
Trooper First Class John Barone: It's illegal to take my picture.
Michael Picard: It's public property.
Trooper First Class John Barone: It's illegal to take my picture. Personally, it is illegal.
Michael Picard: No it isn't.
Trooper First Class John Barone: Did you get any documentation I'm allowing you to take my picture?
Michael Picard: No, but you're on public property. Therefore, you have no reasonable ex-
Trooper First Class John Barone: No I'm not, I'm on state property. I'm on state property.
Michael Picard: You have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Trooper First Class John Barone: Stay there and be quiet.
Michael Picard: Can I have my phone back?
Trooper First Class John Barone: Not yet.
[Cop illegally seizes phone and walks away with it, not understanding that it is still recording video and audio. Phone sits on top of cop car while cops discuss what to do. Cops run background checks and make sure the citizen has a permit for his firearm.]
[...]
Trooper First Class John Barone [to other cop]: You want me to punch a number on this either way? Gotta cover our ass.
Sergeant John Jacobi: He was on- he was on the highway portion?
Trooper First Class John Barone: Yeah.
Sergeant John Jacobi: So, we can hit him with reckless use of the highway by a pedestrian and creating a public disturbance, and whatever he said.
Trooper First Class John Barone: That's a ticket?
Sergeant John Jacobi: Two tickets.
Trooper First Class John Barone: Yeah.
[Cops talk about ticket numbers and talk to another citizen, who they let go.]
Sergeant John Jacobi: Crap! I mean, we can hit him with creating a public disturbance.
[I believe that this section is broken up because Torneo is on the phone, and the breaks indicate a silence while the other party is speaking.]
Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo: The problem is-
Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo: The problem is-
Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo: (inaudible)
Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo: Right, right, but if he's squatting in the middle of the highway...
Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo: Right.
[...]
Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo: Um, yeah, he showed up on the first day of school, with a buddy, and did an armed open carry walk around Hartford.
Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo: Uh, let's give him something.
Sergeant John Jacobi: What are they going to do? Are they going to do anything?
Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo: Didn't say, didn't say.
Sergeant John Jacobi: It's legal to do it.
Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo: Um, this is state property. If you want to get over here, you have to come on the ramp. Make sure your guy gives him something.
Sergeant John Jacobi: He's going to get his truck, he's going to come down and give him a ticket.
Sergeant John Jacobi: He's gonna do something, he's gotta do a ticket.
[Cops talk to another motorist and tell him he can go.]
Sergeant John Jacobi: I think we can do a simple trespass, we do reckless use of the highway and creating a public disturbance.
Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo: Yep. Yep.
Sergeant John Jacobi: All three are tickets-
Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo: Yep.
Sergeant John Jacobi: We'll throw all three on the ticket.
Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo: And then we claim that, um, in backup, we had multiple people, um, they didn't want to stay and give us a statement, so we took our own course of action.
Sergeant John Jacobi: Ok.
Sergeant John Jacobi: The permit is good. The gun is good.
Master Sergeant Patrick Torneo: Alright.
So there you have it. They illegally take the camera, bring up the fact that they have to give him charges to cover their asses, discuss what charges to give him, and then conspire to give false testimony that will back up their claims. None of the cops seem to do a double take during any of this, contrary to what the "few bad apples" crowd should expect. This is everyday business for cops. The only thing novel about this incident is that they didn't intitally realize that they were recording themselves, and surprisingly gave back the camera once they did realize. I'm guessing they would have played the situation differently if they had known how much audio was captured, and at least deleted the video before handing the phone back. I don't know how much more evidence people want that the cops are crooked on an institutional level.
I even interpret the question "He was on- he was on the highway portion?" and response "Yeah." to be a read-between-the-lines moment between the two officers. Note that one of them later says "Crap! I mean, we can hit him with creating a public disturbance" as if they don't have other charges to throw at him, and a third cop later says (presumably on the phone, and after explaining that there was a "problem") "Right, right, but if he's squatting in the middle of the highway..." This is a conditional statement. Not "since he's squatting in the middle of the highway," but "if."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lcklspckl on Thursday September 22 2016, @09:55PM
The entire and proper phrase is 'one bad apple spoils the barrel'. We're past applesauce cider.
Using that phrase as a shrugarific, "Oh, pooh, it's just one bad apple," suggests that we tolerate it rather than pluck out the rotten apple. "Don't pluck me out, sir, I promise not to rot the rest. I'm am but only one." Fools that don't keep an eye on their food, eat rotten food. True since we've been barrelling apples.
I agree with your sentiment though.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Thursday September 22 2016, @10:08PM
In another report about this, "punch a number on this guy" has been interpreted as meaning "find a statute he violated."
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a5e_1474465813&comments=1 [liveleak.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @01:31PM
Also a further explanation is necessary:
Finding a reason to stop someone AFTER you have stopped them is a violation of their constitutional rights. There exists no reasonable suspicion if you have to make up a reason to stop them AFTER you stopped them. If they had a reason to harass him, they would have already known what law he was allegedly violating. This is 100% illegal activity, but of course not as heinous as shooting an unarmed person and then deciding "he was reaching for a weapon."
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday September 23 2016, @04:56PM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @09:58PM
"I think most people learn that by the time they're 10 years old"
Well then aren't you just the clever little authoritarian follower then?
Clever little boy learning to bow down before his betters. Isn't he so CUTE there on his knees with his butt cheeks spread.
Such an obedient, clever little boy. Give him a sweetie.
Now bark, roll over and play dead....never mind you already did....
(Score: 3, Funny) by Zz9zZ on Thursday September 22 2016, @10:13PM
Thank you little troll for kickstarting the discussion. I often wonder how many times people are stirring the pot, and how many times they are actually serious.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @02:06AM
I read an article that said that you do more good stating the extreme version of the side you are against than for.
So, arguably, he has done more good than bad, regardless of his views.
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Thursday September 22 2016, @10:32PM
Actually, no. Due to complete utter pieces of shit like you, we have schools with police officers that will place handcuffs on a 7 year old boy because he was upset and crying after being teased. We have schools where a teenage girl can be unexpectedly called up to the WWE big leagues and slammed to the ground hard by a man that probably outweighed her by twice her weight, and was at least twice her size.
They're learning much earlier than 10 years old, and not by conversation. If you actually listened to what children are saying these days, you would find sad and frightened children wondering if they will be okay, wondering if the cops will shoot them, wondering if they will grow up with everyone hating them.
Be a dick you say? Like that middle aged social worker, Charles Kinsey, taking care of an autistic kid having a bad day? Yeah, he was such a dick raising his hands up and calmly asking the police officer to not shoot him or the kid and that neither of them were a threat.
He was still shot.
Regardless of this particular man's belligerence, it is never a justifiable cause to subvert justice by fabricating charges against him. Under no circumstance is that anything other than those officers abjectly failing in their duties, failing their communities, and failing themselves. We trust them to act with integrity and allow them great powers against us, notably with firearms. You allow such behavior to exist and it foments situations like the movie with Eddie Murphy and Martin Lawrence where a pissed off arrogant sheriff contrived charges against them and put them away for life. While that is a movie, the number of people imprisoned that way isn't trivial, and the number of innocent men found on death row is far greater than zero.
This. Cannot. Stand. We must be able to trust, and even revere, our law enforcement. Yet, all the way back, Chicago cops were shooting protestors in the back and taking moonlighting jobs as anti-union enforcers.
Continue to support this heinous behavior and more people will die, both cops and civilians. Charlotte was the beginning as innocent people keep getting killed by cops, and in jails, on a weekly basis in our "great" country. Even more unfortunately it seems, we've transitioned to a daily basis. The last time 3 black men died in the space of week, you saw parity with the number of cops being assassinated.
If that weren't enough, I can take it even further by speaking about the men and women that have died in jail simply due to thirst after having their water shut off .
I would suggest you change your attitude and start holding law enforcement accountable for their inhumane practices, for one day they may be coming for you, and they'll be as typically humane as they are now.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @07:20PM
lel, commenting does nothing - men with guns do. Ergo, you lose.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday September 24 2016, @01:30AM
So might makes right?
Enjoy the world you're supporting, and you better hope to all the gods that those men with guns and power find you amusing and are incentivized to not abuse you.
As for losing, you can keep saying that. However, when 10,000 pissed off protestors finally lose it, smug police officers will need all the military hardware they can get just to survive. That hubris shows when military trained and abused civilians fall back on military training and start designating their own targets. That's happened twice, and the number of cops lost versus "domestic terrorists" made up for several other innocent civilians that were murdered.
Make no mistake. We outnumber the cops. What keeps the cops safe from us is literally them doing their duty and us being appreciate and gracious for it. When they fail in their duty, and become nothing but corrupt thugs themselves that we rightly fear, then the people will react by taking out the thugs. When a good percentage of those people have received military training themselves, that's not a dice roll you want to start taking.
You've rolled craps at least twice, assuming you're blindly for law enforcement like you appear to be ;)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.