SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Police who raided a marijuana store, destroying security cameras and the DVR, harassing the store's customers, consuming edible marijuana products, and playing darts, were caught on camera. The cops claim that said recording is illegal because the cops had an expectation of privacy after destroying all of the security cameras.
I wish I could make up this stuff.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Police Claim Recording of Marijuana Dispensary Raid is Illegal
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 120 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
TAPPING? You POLITICIANS! Don't you realize that the END of the "Wash
Cycle" is a TREASURED MOMENT for most people?!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:50PM
You know what else we also don't ever see?
Honest cops defending the honor of the police by presenting an united front against the "bad apples."
Instead, we've got the exact opposite situation: the "thin blue line," the dishonorable code of honor that says that loyalty to the uniform trumps all else, including loyalty to the law, the society, and basic human dignity.
Were there any honest cops left in Santa Ana, they'd have already called a press conference and demanded the immediate resignation and / or termination of everybody who took part in this raid, including their supervisors all the way up to the Chief. That nothing remotely like that has happened tells us that the entire force is corrupt to some degree or another -- either they're as unabashedly dirty as those on the video, or they're non-objecting accomplices after the fact.
Indeed, that we find ourselves in a situation such as this where those caught on camera are whining about the fact they got caught instead of openly admitting that they fucked up and resigning on the spot tells you all you need to know about just how dishonorable a "profession" policing has become.
I mean, imagine if you had an after-hours drunken party at work where you smashed the place up good, gave some real frights to the janitors, and joked about how you were about to kick the gimpy one in the groin. And that it was all caught on surveillance tape. Would it even occur to you to protest to the boss that you shouldn't be fired because you forgot to turn off the surveillance system?
In what other context is even a fraction of this sort of behavior even remotely tolerable or excusable? Where else could you do this sort of thing and have all your cow-orkers support you?
Who else but a crime lord or his minions could even think of suggesting that there's nothing worth worrying about when something like this happens?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Francis on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:07PM
Why bother? This view of the world isn't going to change no matter what the police do or say. I mean for heaven's gate, I saw somebody claim in all seriousness that Sandra Bland was lynched in prison despite no actual evidence that she hadn't hanged herself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:13PM
> Why bother? This view of the world isn't going to change no matter what the police do or say.
Oh please. The world is not binary. The fact that some people will always be suspicious doesn't excuse the fact that the police have a big and correctable problem.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:20PM
No, but the crazies in the black lives matter movement aren't likely to believe anything they get. A man was shot to death by police a couple blocks from here a couple weeks ago and people have already largely forgotten about it. No protests and very little press. Main reason was that he was a white man shot by police rather than being somebody of color. The black lives matter protesters are every bit as racist as the people they're protesting, but they would rather prevent Bernie Saunders from talking than engage in some real dialog.
Trying to negotiate with people like that does little other than waste your time and energy. Ever try debating a Klansman? I'm betting you wouldn't get anywhere with them either.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:35PM
> Ever try debating a Klansman?
Nope. But I'm getting a pretty good idea of what it would be like.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @06:06PM
Probably because you're a different kind of bigot. The black lives matter people focus on a tiny part of the problem that reinforces their previously held views. They're willing to let countless black men die young due to things like heart disease, diabetes and other preventable illnesses and choose to focus on a relatively rare problem. In the mean time people who aren't colored get killed by police and that's OK. No comment at all about police brutality or how that person shouldn't have been killed.
(Score: 4, Touché) by HiThere on Sunday August 09 2015, @07:40PM
On what grounds do you declare the problem to be "relatively rare"?
It may, indeed, *be* relatively rare, but the statistics aren't being honestly collected by an unbiased party.
That said, I also feel that if a person chooses to act in ways that shorten their life, that's their choice. But if they act in ways that shorten or diminish someone else's life...that's likely to be a criminal matter. This attitude comes with lots of difficult edge cases, but that doesn't change the core. And, no, you can't claim that because their friends are inherently affected by whatever they do that's grounds for overriding this. (Family is a more difficult case...but it should be their choice.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Informative) by FakeBeldin on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:14PM
the statistics aren't being honestly collected by an unbiased party.
Maybe their sources are wrong, but the Guardian is trying to just make the data available:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database [theguardian.com].
Currently: 340 white people killed by police, 179 black people, 101 hispanic/latino.
This apparently translates into:
- 1.72 in 1 million white folks is killed by police
- 4.28 in 1 million black folks is killed by police
- 1.87 in 1 million hispanic/latino folks is killed by police
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday August 10 2015, @04:32AM
To me this (the following) is kind of both shocking and dismayingly “normal” i.e. utterly fucked up in lots of different ways. I'm not letting the Guardian run scripts on my computer so I can't check anything there but their percentages look weird. Or maybe it's the use of percentages that makes it look weird when almost twice as many whites are being killed? White lives don't matter? Is the Guardian flaunting their racist oikophobic tendencies?
Be that as it may (it's a huge subject) maybe it's time for everybody else to also (additionally) focus on those 340 white people and 101 hispanic people? Stop focusing on race/color/whatever you want to call it and start focusing on criminals hiding behind a(ny) badge?
A white guy holding sunglasses should not be shot and/or killed just like a black guy buying a toy gun in a shop should not be shot and/or killed. Young kids of any color should not be killed. The message ought to be “All lives matter”.
P.s. any “PC leftists” (there are plenty at the Guardian) ought to be embarassed that it takes a “far right” person like me to point that out. They ought to have done that themselves and saved themselves the shame.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Monday August 10 2015, @08:36AM
1. You are right, we should also worry about other folk being shot by the police.
2. The percentages make sense if there are somewhere around 5 times as many white folks as black folk in the country.
E.g.: If there would be 200 black people and 1000 white people, then (with the above numbers) 90% of black folk would have been shot, while only 34% of white folk.
I couldn't find a clear statement on the distribution of race /ethnicity on the Guardian's site. From Wikipedia:
"White Americans are the racial majority, with a 77.7% share of the U.S. population. African Americans are the largest racial minority, amounting to 13.2% of the population. Hispanic and Latino Americans amount to 17.1% of the population, making up the largest ethnic minority."
So that bears out point 2: around 5 times as many white folk as black folk.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday August 10 2015, @10:29PM
Yes except percentages don't make sense the way they're used where a lower percentage is somehow “better” even when it means is that more people in a group are killed. It's a pretty good example of how to lie despite using the correct numbers. Yet another cognitive version of cooking the books.
You and me and everyone are not ((1/number of people in whatever group attributed)*100), we're all ((1/1)*100) while alive and ((0/1)*100) when dead :|
Whites are less likely to “interact” with cops, less likely to be pulled over, less likely to be searched, less likely to be harassed, and even less likely (that's a percentage after all) to be killed. Or so the usual MSM & “special interests” portrayal goes but even so more whites end up dead. There's something wrong with that so why is such a flawed angle being pushed and is it to lull non-blacks into apathy about the number of people killed, the randomness, the brutality, and the frequency, as has been successfully done before? That is how we got here. (And I'm not saying all of the MSM etc. are like the Guardian where plenty or all of the white people working there would be completly horrified if any white did anything against perceived oppression of whites, so there's more than that going on).
The MSM for whatever reasons is perpetuating the problems through social control/damage control and not as actual news or information, people need to call them out on it and not fall for it.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @12:33PM
Or in other words, according to that data, black people are 2.5 times as likely to be killed by police than those who are white or hispanic/latino.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:42PM
Fallacy of relative privation. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:35PM
So why aren't you protesting? Why aren't you pushing it on the media? You're just as guilty as the people you're chastising, hypocrite.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:14PM
Tu quoque. Why aren't you doing so too? In fact, how do you know he's not? One person can only do so much, and few people are as charismatic as MLK.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:50PM
Close, but I never stated or implied that the point wasn't valid or should be ignored based on his hypocrisy, which is what makes it a fallacy ('you're not also doing it, so your point is invalid'). There's nothing fallicious about simply pointing out hypocrisy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @12:06AM
Then it's not close; my implication that it was an example of tu quoque was simply incorrect. But it is hard to tell sometimes, as hypocrisy is often used as a way to dismiss someone's arguments in and of itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:07PM
Why would I be protesting? I'm not protesting the other ones. The protests are done in bad faith based upon the assumption that the police are wrong. By the time the facts of the case are known, the protests overshadow the facts and the actions of the parties involved receive an inaccurate re-appraisal in the context of the protesting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @06:41PM
Murder is always wrong. Police are not judges nor executioners, if they kill anyone they are automatically in the wrong. This is not the Judge Dredd universe, the job of police is to bring in suspected criminals so they can go to court, not act as judge, jury, and executioner.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @06:55PM
Bingo.
Those who haven't done so yet need to find a copy of Frank Serpico's story of trying to root out the bad apples.
In a related storyline, a United Auto Workers local has called for the expulsion of the International Union of Police Associations from the UAW.
Why We Can’t Support Police Unions [jacobinmag.com]
Want to change the status quo?
What is needed to weed out bad cops is a Special Prosecutor who deals ONLY with police malfeasance.
Everyone should be pressing his gov't representatives at every level to implement that.
Getting rid of bad cops is an issue where Ralph Nader's Left-Right Coalition shows itself to be an excellent notion with a clear majority on each side of the traditional divide.
N.B. Current California Attorney General Kamala Harris is opposed to this notion and as a result I do not support her run for the US Senate.
-- gewg_