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.
Related Stories
Marijuana Dispensary wins $100,000!
When Sky High Holistic was subject to a police raid, it was hardly the end of the business. In fact, it ironically gave the marijuana dispensary a big boost, $100,000 to be exact.
The money comes from a lawsuit alleging police harassment of the marijuana dispensary, settled by the City of Santa Ana this week. Santa Ana has also agreed to drop charges against a dozen employees accused of illegally operating.
It's a good thing the cameras were on; The dispensary cameras, that is. Apparently, the cops hung around the establishment long after the raid occurred, playing darts and making demeaning comments about the staff. And once they got comfortable, they indulged in Sky High pot-laced edibles.
Article:
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/pot-shop-busts-cops-surveillance-cam-wins-100000
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.alternet.org/drugs/pot-shop-busts-cops-surveillance-cam-wins-100000
Previously: Police Claim Recording of Marijuana Dispensary Raid is Illegal
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @03:28PM
Shocking news that a lawyer is trying exploit a technicality to keep evidence against his client from being introduced!
Shocking. Just shocking.
Other than serving as an anti-cop red meat story for our echo chamber, what is the point of this article?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Sunday August 09 2015, @03:46PM
Other than serving as an anti-cop red meat story for our echo chamber, what is the point of this article?
Given the amount of video evidence of cops abusing their power, is it not reasonable and rational to be anti-cop?
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:22PM
Except that you dont see video of the 10's of thousands that just 'do their job' every day, properly and without incident. Much like if you work in 'customer service', you only hear about the bad experiences, and almost never the good ones. After a while your entire view of reality is shifted towards the red if all see is the bad.
(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_
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:36PM
If only you were correct.
I am not so sure there are *any* good cops.
In the first 2 months of 2015, US cops killed 3 people per day. Unfortunately, we did not get many of these on video, so the cop stories *always* win. You know, "I thought he was reaching for a gun, so I shot him 30 times, in the back, while he was handcuffed, face down on the ground." Of course, not counted in this number are the number of people who "commit suicide" in their cells-- somehow beating themselves senseless, then hanging themselves in their cells-- sometimes while in shackles even! Houdini would be impressed.
Whenever there is an atrocity caught on tape, you see *all* the other officers who respond always trying to cover up the crime-- *never* arresting the cops who committed the original criminal act. They will seize bystanders' cameras / phones, to try to cover it up, even arrest witnesses who refuse, etc.-- these cops are all accessories to the original crime (often torture and murder).
And, then there are the videotaped incidents like the killing by 20 cops on the Mexican border in San Diego. All 20 participated in the beating of a man to death (his crime that enraged the officers to torture-murder him was asking to speak to an attorney). Not one fucking cop tried to stop it. Each one of them would walk up to the man being held down, and kick him in the sides and in the face (and especially in his leg that he had made the mistake of telling the cops was injured). Now the children of a man who was described as a devoted father are suffering too.
Occasionally, less horrific incident are filmed that demonstrate the sadistic nature of cops. Like the cop running out and pushing over a cyclist into the street, for no goddamn reason. Cops are indistinguishable from the worst of worst street gangs except that cops act with impunity.
So, tell me, what evidence to do you have that good cops exist, and that if they do, that they are not such a vanishingly small minority, as to not matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:07PM
To sum up an answer for you... Act like a thug, get treated like a thug. They should bring back old western justice, crime rates would drop fast.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:18PM
Most cops would get shot for acting like thugs or defending their thug buddies. They're lucky we don't have old western 'justice'.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday August 09 2015, @06:06PM
The 'good' thugs still enforce unconstitutional and unjust laws. The 'good' thugs defend the thugs who violate people's constitutional rights and abuse their powers left and right. There are a significant amount of thugs, and not enough actual police officers.
You have to be a freedom-hating authoritarian to defend thugs. No amount of abuses on their part will ever convince you that there is a serious and widespread issue, and an almost complete lack of accountability for those who abuse their powers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:40PM
Police are not lawmakers nor judges. Their job is to enforce the laws, not write them or repeal them, not pick and choose which ones they think should be enforced at any given moment. If there are unconstitutional and unjust laws on the books, that's your fault, as all the power of democracy lies with the people.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:12PM
Police are not lawmakers nor judges.
They are human beings capable of controlling their own actions. 'Just doing my job' is no excuse, so don't even try it.
If there are unconstitutional and unjust laws on the books, that's your fault, as all the power of democracy lies with the people.
Technically, it's their fault too, then. They can help by not enforcing those laws.
But I wouldn't say it's any individual's fault. I and others use every available means to fight against these laws, but the ignorant and apathetic majority stands in the way. And two party winner-take-all systems don't encourage true democracy, because the majority is too stupid and short-sighted to realize that voting for The One Party instead of likeable third party candidates leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe it is my fault for not being omnipotent, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:58PM
You're right, I spoke too quickly without thinking it through properly so allow me a correction: as government agents, unconstitutional laws should definitely not be enforced - enforcing any law which violates the letter or spirit of the constitution should at a minimum cost them their job, however "unjust" laws are outside their domain and specialty. I don't expect them to be competent or informed enough to know what makes a law "unjust" (too subjective and too many ways a law could be "unjust", be it in its letter or in the consequences of enforcing it), however every officer of the law should be required to know the constitution inside and out because unconstitutional laws are void because they're unconstitutional.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday August 10 2015, @05:03PM
And two party winner-take-all systems don't encourage true democracy, because the majority is too stupid and short-sighted to realize that voting for The One Party instead of likeable third party candidates leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It's a self-perpetuating situation. Given a choice between voting for the lesser of two evils and voting for a third option that everybody knows won't win, it makes sense to try to keep the greater evil out of office rather than wsting your vote.
The simplest remedy to change this dynamic is a preferential ballot -- you get to specify a first choice, a second choice and so on. If your first choice doesn't get in, your ballot gets transferred to your second choice.
This makes it feasible to vote for the third option without wasting your vote.
True proportional representation s my preferred voting scheme, but it isn't practical in situation s where there has to be a single winner, and it's is a much larger change than switching to a preferential ballot.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 11 2015, @12:59AM
and voting for a third option that everybody knows won't win
Do you honestly not see the problem with this logic? You're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. And even if they have 0 chance of winning, I will never vote for evil freedom-hating scumbags, because I actually have principles. If that's the kind of thing you want to show your support for, you are the problem. I don't care if it's a 'lesser' evil.
But third parties don't even necessarily need to win. Enough votes for third party candidates can scare candidates from The One Party into adopting some of their policies.
This makes it feasible to vote for the third option without wasting your vote.
The only wasted vote is a vote for an evil scumbag. I only vote for third party candidates, but not once have I ever wasted my vote. Not once.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 11 2015, @01:03AM
Not to mention, if you keep voting for 'lesser' evils, the candidates can get ever more evil; it's just that one has to be less evil than the other.
I do agree that our voting system is complete garbage and needs to change. But guess who benefits from it? That's right: The same evil candidates that people keep voting in. Our voting system won't change unless people stop being short-sighted. Voting for evil is not and never will be strategic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2015, @11:38AM
The "self-fulfilling prophecy" is there whether you liked it or not.
You could call it the prisoner's dilemma, but it might be just a related phenomenon with similar consequence. The core problem is that optimizing for what's "good" for each individual voter (the lesser evil) does not yield globally optimal solution (3rd party).
If people had a true hive-mind they could just take logical advantage of the expectation that everyone else will do the same and jump over the "cliff", but unfortunately we just aren't like that in the required magnitude.
Don't confuse this with advocating voting for the lesser evil. That yields horrible results in time. The point is that the solution lies elsewhere if it exists at all. (ie. convince the rulers that changing the voting system is in their interest)
Alternatively, you can buy that "scare the scumbags into adopting 3rd party policies" actually works.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 11 2015, @11:50AM
The "self-fulfilling prophecy" is there whether you liked it or not.
People create it. So yes, it is there whether I like it or not. Most people are extremely short-sighted and I do not expect anything else, but the answer is not to give up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @03:03AM
So they can do anything they like, as long as they can say "I was only following orders" ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @10:42AM
The police is generally not an expert on lawmaking so it might be not be reasonable to expect them to know what is just and what isn't. However, in cases where it indeed is, and obviously so, your line is known as the Nurenberg defense.
The fallacy there is that one entity being responsible for the outcome doesn't mean that others aren't as well.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday August 10 2015, @02:52PM
Their job is to enforce the laws, not write them or repeal them, not pick and choose which ones they think should be enforced at any given moment.
Not true. In the U.S., each branch of government (legislative, judicial, executive) has unique abilities that act as balances against the abuse of powers in the other two. The police (which are part of the executive branch) absolutely have the right to pick and choose which laws to enforce; as a city, state, and nation the law enforcement community has the authority to ignore unconstitutional/unjust laws such that they are never brought to trial.
Lawmakers hate it, as they like to think that their "I will make it legal" powers are absolute; unfortunately for them, the founding fathers anticipated the results of an out-of-control legislature and built a solution into the system when our nation was founded.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 3, Insightful) by compro01 on Sunday August 09 2015, @06:47PM
Yes, then I see those "good cops" forming a blue wall to protect these cops.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:43PM
ftfy
(Score: 3, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Monday August 10 2015, @12:00AM
Except that you dont see video of the 10's of thousands that just 'do their job' every day, properly and without incident.
If we don't see them, what's to say they exist? Power corrupts, and the more we get to see, the more it appears that the people who are not corrupted by power are the very tiny minority.
Cops are the most powerful gang in town. That's all. It's possible there's the odd good one to the same degree that it's possible there's the odd good member of any other gang. But in either case, very few are good enough that they would actually whitleblow on the rest.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday August 10 2015, @04:37PM
I make a point sometimes to go to customer service and tell the how much I'm enjoying the product I've bought.
Sometimes it confuses them.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:05PM
Actually, it is more reasonable and rational to seek to reign in those cops who are out of control. That is not an anti-cop position, despite the fact that some would insist that it is.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:40PM
Speaking from Tottenham, I have an expectation of riots if cops prove less trustworthy than gangsters.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday August 10 2015, @05:13AM
Really? You ought to move then because that would mean you believe you are surrounded by kids who thinks it makes sense to solve the problem of criminal cops by defending criminal pushers and burning down (nice) minority neighborhoods. I'd rather go live under a bush (and I've had that experience, I know it's not nice) than live with people like that.
I would like to think you're wrong though and that the rioters got the shit beaten out of them by their parents and relatives when they returned home. At least that's what any good Nigerian mother would do (unfortunately not all the kids were Nigerian) and in this case I wouldn't be able to argue against them (not that anyone ever dares as far as I know).
I like basmati rice too (although I prefer jasmin) but come on… and it's what? Something close to 3 quid for one of those giant bags? Just how much rice did that kid need? Does he snort it? Would explain a lot :P
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday August 09 2015, @03:52PM
There is an epic battle shaping up over transparency, privacy and surveillance, and while the NSA spying on us is part of the story, so is them and other officials being hoisted on their own petard another part. That is definitely "stuff that matters."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:39PM
It adds nothing to this narrative so, yes, it is basically just red meat for the echo chamber.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:09PM
Disagree. The court will make a ruling regarding surveillance and expectations of privacy, so this matters.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:19PM
While true, the very fact that the police officers involved are wiling to let him go thru with it shows their level of depravity knows no boundaries. At some point you just need to admit it and take your punishment. "Hey, it was a bad idea, we are sorry"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:36PM
Yes, if you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar. But these guy's jobs are on the line, and I presume they will be subject to criminal and/or civil charges, so they are going to be a lot more aggressive in trying to get this evidence tossed out.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:55PM
If they're going to this level of "aggression" to "protect" their mere jobs, then they have already demonstrated that they utterly lack even an hint of the moral character required for the job in the first place.
Then again, their inexcusable behavior has already demonstrated that.
What I'd like to know is what sorts of criminal negligence prosecution will be brought against their supervisors as well as whoever hired them in the first place. I mean, you don't really expect me to think that this is the first time this lot have done something like this, or that not a one of them showed any previous signs of violent criminal tendencies?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday August 10 2015, @02:43AM
"I mean, you don't really expect me to think that this is the first time this lot have done something like this, or that not a one of them showed any previous signs of violent criminal tendencies?"
You bring up an interesting point. (pure, unadulterated, unfounded, unsubstantiated speculation to follow) It makes me wonder if this has occurred in other dispensaries. Only they got all the cameras? I was curious why there was a second totally separate security system running. Perhaps victimized dispensary owners have warned other owners to install secondary systems for this very reason?
"If they're going to this level of "aggression" to "protect" their mere jobs, then they have already demonstrated that they utterly lack even an hint of the moral character required for the job in the first place."
Well, they exceeded that level of aggression DOING their jobs, and the simple destruction of the security system is evidence of their high moral character, some of the most appalling footage I have ever seen.
Imagine the slippery slope it would create if the evidence is suppressed. Unofficial criminals could then use this defense if they missed a camera during a robbery.
As far as the people who hired them, I don't see fault there as long as they qualified without prior incidences. You simply can't know another persons character from a resume, interview. Years ago my son, a manager at a local burger joint here in town, hired a guy who ended up murdering a co-worker in the trash compactor. The guy was good on paper, interviewed well, worked hard, worked well. Right up until the night he snapped. So, no, I can't hold the people who hired them responsible. You simply can't know the mind of another.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:51PM
Love the sinner, hate the sin. It isn't anti-cop, it anti police state abuses. It points to either a need for more oversite, more training or better hiring practices. Barring that shouldn't we expect people whose job is to enforce the law be better at breaking?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @07:55PM
To enrage the proletariat who would otherwise be watching tv, playing games, out visiting family/friends, aka living their lives in any case.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:06PM
The issue at hand is that there are countless cases where police have claimed it is illegal to film them - and in many, they have won. If successful, this would be a new boundary.
That being said, I can't see this being successful. It reminds me of the tale of someone on trial for murdering his parents, and begging for mercy because he's an orphan.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:06PM
The client, a police department, should not resort to the same tactics of the enemy he is supposed to fight with our tax money, unless we are speaking of infiltration and stuff.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:51PM
I submitted this piece because I found it unbelievable. Take a look at the video included in the article. I really thought the store was being robbed, with a few of the robbers disguised as police officers. This state of affairs is utterly ridiculous, as in deserving ridicule.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:32PM
It starts right from the beginning. Perhaps someone can explain why the cops needed a battering ram to break open the door to a shop that, judging by the number of customers inside, was open for business. Could they not read the "pull" sign, and after pushing? Why the wanton destruction of property?
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday August 10 2015, @12:06AM
I seem to recall seeing a post when this video first surfaced that suggested that the issuance of licenses to run these dispensaries was not entirely above board and that the raid may have had its origins in this not-entirely open and transparent licensing regime.
In other words, someone was suggesting that the intent of the raid was to wreck the place.
I have no knowledge of the truth of this allegation. It sounds rather unlikely to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @01:22AM
"No knock" raids with stun grenades, machine guns, and tanks at dawn are the standard in drug raids. They used a battering ram because "drugs". They need no other justification.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday August 10 2015, @08:58AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: -1, Troll) by Bot on Sunday August 09 2015, @03:34PM
If you consume them, you get high and do silly things.
If you fight them, ditto.
I suggest to ignore them, completely.
- "Hey bro do you wanna buy..."
- "*looks at his smartphone* OH LOOK A NEW SYSTEMD VERSION IS OUT, LET'S SEE WHAT THEY BROKE THIS TIME!!!"
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Sunday August 09 2015, @07:42PM
I'm confused, by drugs, do you mean anything illegal, or do you mean except for the drugs sanctioned by the state?
Do you eat chocololate or drink coffee?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:20PM
Legality or the lack thereof are irrelevant, the substance does not care, nor it cares if I consume it instead of someone else. And sugar, be wary about that too.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Sunday August 09 2015, @03:46PM
To Protect & Serve ... yourself to the 'edibles', after trying to destroy the stores surveillance system and failing. A 'high' crime that the police union will claim warrants less than a misdemeanor.
Fire each and every officer involved in the raid, "Pour encourager les autres".
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday August 09 2015, @03:57PM
Is that French supposed to be "pour decourager les autres?" (To discourage the others). Encourager means "to encourage," I think
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by SpockLogic on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:13PM
The quote comes from Voltaire's novel Candide about Admiral John Byng who was court-martialled, found guilty and executed for failing to do all he could to fulfill his orders.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:38PM
Dans ce pay-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.
In this country it is good to kill an admiral from time to time, to encourage the others.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:41PM
Gotcha, thanks. So, shoot the slow/bad ones to make the rest do a better job rather than make an example of the bad one to discourage bad behavior in the rest.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:12PM
Gotcha, thanks. So, shoot the slow/bad ones to make the rest do a better job rather than make an example of the bad one to discourage bad behavior in the rest.
As my original comment was "Fire each and every officer involved in the raid,, "Pour encourager les autres", I disagree. I would include the Chief of Police and chain of command to the raid as well.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 5, Interesting) by TrumpetPower! on Sunday August 09 2015, @03:50PM
Those weren't police in the raid, regardless of whatever paperwork and other official detritus they might have claiming the contrary.
They're armed masked thugs and bandits, common criminals in fancy costumes. They are as much of a threat to society as any other organized criminal gang.
Prudence dictates behaving with extreme caution when dealing with such violently ruthless people, especially when they run in groups like this -- which may well include offering the pretense of respect.
But there's no way to actually respect anybody who wears the colors of the Santa Ana Police Gang after this.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:02PM
I'm sure that there are a few nice and ethical cops in America, just as there is certainly an equal proportion of nice and ethical gangsters.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday August 10 2015, @11:59AM
I'm sure that there are a few nice and ethical cops in America, just as there is certainly an equal proportion of nice and ethical gangsters.
You mean that it's just a case of 99% giving the rest a bad name?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday August 10 2015, @05:03PM
Assuming your 99% giving the rest a bad name was actually correct, we would have a lot more troubles than we do. In actuality, despite what the internet hordes may want you to believe, there are less than 1% bad cops giving the greater than 99% good cops a bad name. That may vary depending on location, though. Most police officers are trying to do right by their families and doing something messed up like this doesn't help.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @05:39PM
For the "less than 1% bad cops" to get away with it, most cops have to be complicit by not reporting the 1%, and I would not call those cops that cover up for the bad cops "good cops", therefore even if you only define a small percentage as bad, most cops certainly are not good cops.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:06PM
Parent is right on the money.
> Police Claim Recording of Marijuana Dispensary Raid is Illegal
No, Marijuana Dispensary claims Police Raid is Illegal. And everyone who was part of it should land in jail for many years, just like any of us lowly citizens would. Anything less destroys the so called moral authority of the law.
Welcome to your "war on mere objects" America! Disgusting. How much more do we need to see before we agree it is far past time for all of this nonsense to end.
(Score: -1, Troll) by zugedneb on Sunday August 09 2015, @03:52PM
.. I came to troll :D
Now, u fuckers dancing on the bones of all dead niggas, your country is worse than most communist countries was.
Also, remember that a lot of the commie violence happened after world wars, with countries being divided, and losing land to the winners. Thus, not a good mood.
WTF is your excuse? Grumpy cuz no amreican dream?
So wtf? Any time now the armed USA citizens are going to jump to the defence of the other man.
I mean wtf, thats why u own gunz, ez? To defend against the unrighteous?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: -1, Troll) by zugedneb on Sunday August 09 2015, @03:59PM
If the jews start to mow down the buildings in us with their uber bulldozers, will u fuckers start defending urselves?
So, WTF, when can world see some entertainment?
The elite gun owning US citizens revolt and start defending themselves?
COME ON MOTHERFUCKERS SHOW SOME SPINE!!!!!11
SO MANY NATIONS REVOLTED IN MORE HORRIBLE TIMES WITH LESSER GUNS AND AMMO THEN YOU HAVE!!!111
Y U COWARD? U FUCKIN' CHICKEN?
morons...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:08PM
> SO MANY NATIONS REVOLTED IN MORE HORRIBLE TIMES
They revolted Because the times were more horrible, I guess?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by zugedneb on Sunday August 09 2015, @07:24PM
Sure, they had less education, worse means of communication, worse nutrition, not as well armed, and by and large had a lot more brutal enemies than the deranged US police...
Not to mention, they did not constantly brag about how much they value the fathers of the land for giving them such a nice constitution.
So for yourselves what you do for others, yeah?
Let me see you killing your fucking enemies in within your own borders, before you go spreading freedom to others.
You motherfuckers dropped 2 atomic bombs on a nation that mostly engaged military targets.
You are complete fucking lunatics.
If it were not for the nuclear weapons, you would be obliterated by now. There might come a time though...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:51PM
Seriously. Where the fuck are those "The second amendment is to protect yourself and everyones' rights!" nutters? Shouldn't they be actively hunting bad cops to, you know, protect people and everyones' rights that are constantly being violated? Oh, that's right, they're on their knees getting mouthfuls of pig cum, cheering on these treasonous fuckers because they're only attacking poor and colored people. They're all about "tough on crime" policies because only niggers, spics, and poor people are criminals.
(Score: 1) by stackOVFL on Monday August 10 2015, @04:06PM
Well, I can't comment for all us 2'nd amendment nutters but anyone attacking (or suggesting) the police is a idiot of the first degree. Not to mention killing is wrong and that what everybody is pissed about, they'd last maybe a few hours against the police. The police have been grabbing up all kinds of military grade equipment over the years. They wear full body armor and carry fully automatic rifles. The police at this time ARE AN ARMY. You'd be a fool to force a conflict with them, a dead one to boot. I guess at this point I'll just settle on the nutter reason I bought guns in the first place: gun range, paper targets and lots of fun with my nutter friends.
On another matter, the first thing that should be done is to remove the police's internal investigation service. This is the stupidest of stupid ideas. What moron lets a police force investigate itself? Any "internal issues" must be investigated by a formed board citizens, you know like a JURY.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @06:51PM
I'm told the entire point of the second is to fight off the army, which the police have become. The point I'm getting at is these morons talk out of their asses using all kinds of bullshit sophistry, particularly appeal to emotions, but its extremely transparent that they don't actually mean anything they say, they're just selfish, entitled, greedy sociopaths who want to force their will on everyone else. If they actually meant even a single word of the garbage they spew, they'd be out using the firearms they say literally everyone should have access to with no absolutely no restrictions whatsoever for what they claim to be the reason for said unrestricted firearm access - fighting off an oppressive, tyrannical government and protecting everyone's rights. I have yet to see them do anything to protect anything except the things they think they're entitled to (while simultaneously fighting to oppress everyone else).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2015, @02:42AM
You are more correct than you may know.
Little known fact. The NRA was pro-gun control laws when the first gun control laws were proposed-- to get guns out of the hands of black people who were defending themselves and their neighbors against raids by white thugs and police.
Today, the NRA is a racist organization second. First, it is an industry funded organization to promote the gun selling business.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2015, @09:44PM
I keep hearing this but never anything to support it, just proof by assertion. It will remain a little known "fact" so long as there is nothing to support it besides a few nutjobs repeatedly claiming it to be true.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:37PM
Oh, God, I'm tempted to lay into this ignorant prick, but I must not feed the trolls.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by zugedneb on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:47PM
No worries, I am educated.
If you are good, I will not troll.
However, having lived you entire life in one country, and "knowing" some history will not do.
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by mendax on Monday August 10 2015, @03:04AM
I have lived in another country. :-P
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:06PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:11PM
"Hahahahahaha ... that's a good one! But seriously, no, because as has been said in courts across the country, government officials carrying out their official duties have no expectation of privacy."
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:37PM
But they weren't doing their job. Unless you think their job is vandalizing shops.
Of course if they should get through with it, things could get interesting, when every criminal wants evidence to be dropped on the base that they didn't expect it to exist. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday August 09 2015, @06:11PM
If they are making any use whatsoever of their official authority (e.g. identifying themselves as police or flashing a badge around), yes, they are doing their jobs. They might well have been committing a crime while doing their job, but they were acting in their official capacity and have no expectation of privacy.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:40PM
Under Color of Law - yet another charge...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:13PM
Layman summary - if government officials use any kind of punishment other than what is specifically stated to be done per the relevant law (any deprivations of rights, privileges, or property) to anyone, citizen or not, they are to be fined or imprisoned for a year; if assault (threats) or battery (physical harm) occurs with it (eg, police beating people in their custody, using threats and force to steal phones/cameras), up to ten years; if murder, rape, kidnapping (eg, enforcing void laws), or attempts of those occur, life or death.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a cop not guilty of breaking this law. Good find.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:54PM
then they're guilty of trespassing, breaking & entering, theft, vandalization, destruction of property, and assault. case closed.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday August 10 2015, @02:18AM
And tampering/destruction of evidence. Their wanton destruction of the security system caught by a back up system pretty well shows they thought they were destroying the evidence of them destroying the evidence so the evidence wouldn't show them destroying the evidence.
ow, my head hurts now...
Time to pack a fat bowl.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:55PM
Check out the Policeman's Bill of Rights. Cops have *a lot* more rights (especially when accused of a crime), than everyone else.
http://www.policemisconduct.net/one-bill-of-rights-for-you-two-bills-of-rights-for-them/ [policemisconduct.net]
Also, there are specific prohibitions against filming in some states, and even more states have laws regarding audio recordings involving cops.
I would love to see a crowd sourced cop tracker. When you recognize a cop (on or off duty), (optionally )snap a photo, and upload to the tracker with the date, time, and location-- a phone app would make this convenient. Might get them to behave a bit better, if every move they make is recorded. Do the same thing for the rich parasites, and the bought and paid for politicians (I bet we would find a lot of overlap in the location data between these last two groups).
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tathra on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:58PM
which have been ruled unconstitutional [abajournal.com] and are all therefore void laws. "enforcing" a void law is better known as "kidnapping and criminal confinement".
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:42PM
So, along with all these 'cops' going to prison for a long time, we should expect the lawyer who suggested the legal course of action they are seeking to hide all the evidence to be disbarred. Right?
Oh yeah, I forgot, this happened in Murica.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CRCulver on Sunday August 09 2015, @06:01PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:04PM
spoliation of evidence [wikipedia.org] and perverting the course of justice [wikipedia.org] are crimes. a lawyer telling his clients to hide or destroy evidence is also likely guilty of obstruction of justice and probably willing to commit perjury too, not to mention the whole thing is a criminal conspiracy. a defense lawyer's job is to defend his clients, yes, but actively advising them to destroy evidence is criminal.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:16PM
Did the defense attorney tell them to break the cameras? At the point the cameras were being broken there were no criminal charges against the officers pending. The officers broke the cameras because they knew they would be used as evidence. It's unlikely they would be charged with that other than as a matter of damage to property.
The attorney is only arguing that the remaining camera shouldn't be included as evidence because it's allegedly illegal. AFAIK, there's no particular law that says that a motion like that has to be legal, the judge will rule on that as a matter of law and most likely accept the recordings. The notices on the wall should be sufficient to allow the video in, as long as it's accompanied by the usual testimony to the completeness and handling of the tapes.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday August 10 2015, @12:01AM
my comment was based on "the lawyer who suggested the legal course of action they are seeking to hide all the evidence". hiding evidence is spoliation. lawyers always make motions to try to prevent evidence from being admitted to court, thats what they do, but advising their clients to hide the evidence is a crime.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday August 10 2015, @12:03AM
...i think it might just be a parsing error on my part. if he didn't actually advise them to hide the evidence but is trying to "hide" the evidence by preventing it from being admitted to court, then there's no crime.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 09 2015, @05:16PM
Just burn them at the stake. Lynch them. Set an example. No one is above the law. And, that goes for the judge who is to rule on the matter.
Besides, there were SIGNS UP, warning one and all that they were being recorded. If the morons weren't smart enough to destroy ALL the cameras, they still had all the warning that any law could reasonably expect that they were being recorded.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:46PM
"Just burn them at the stake. Lynch them. Set an example. No one is above the law."
Funny, I had the same reaction about you when you dribbled diarrhea out your keyboard about being able to do whatever you wanted with other people's creative and intellectual works. Why is it you get to choose which laws everyone is not above and which laws everyone is above?
You really are a shivering, coward of a nobody pretending to be so big and so dominating. Do you cry often when you are alone?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 10 2015, @06:43AM
IP = Imaginary Property
You don't get to lock people up for "taking" your Imaginary Property. Physical assets are not to be confused with Imaginary Property.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @06:36PM
So if I transfer all of your money out of your bank account into mine, you think I shouldn't be locked up? Bits on a computer aren't physical assets, after all; you exchanged your physical asset for an imaginary property representing them. I really hope that you don't actually mean what you said but instead meant to say something along the lines of "copying isn't stealing"; if I copy your imaginary representation of a physical asset, you lose nothing, but if I take it, you are certainly deprived of a real asset.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @09:27AM
"dribbled diarrhea out your keyboard"?
Look, if you want to succeed as an artist you need to be less bitter about things you cannot control.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @01:20PM
Using an AC account claiming others are cowards. Real genius we got here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @04:23PM
One coward can't finger another?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:17PM
When police refuse to do their jobs, vigilantism becomes inevitable. The citizens delegate justice to the legal system to ensure its fair and impartial, however if the legal system consistently fails for years on end to do fulfill its purpose, the citizens' hands are forced, leaving them no choice but to rescind their delegation of power and take matters into their own hands.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday August 10 2015, @02:28AM
You do see the irony in this one line, don't you? "Lynch them" means to punish them without trial, outside the law and the juridical system. As in asking people to put themselves above the law.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 10 2015, @06:47AM
I might point out that there is a subtle difference between "extrajudicial" and "superjudicial". Today, the police think that they are superjudicial.
However, the second AC to post before you nailed it, perfectly.
"When police refuse to do their jobs, vigilantism becomes inevitable. The citizens delegate justice to the legal system to ensure its fair and impartial, however if the legal system consistently fails for years on end to do fulfill its purpose, the citizens' hands are forced, leaving them no choice but to rescind their delegation of power and take matters into their own hands."
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:42PM
IANAL, but in order to claim this defense aren't they admitting to entering the location and destroying the video surveillance system? Isn't that an admission of guilt? That admission should allow the video of them destroying the surveillance system in as evidence (they've already admitted to it so it's not prejudicial) in support of the other charges. That plus the witness statements should enough to convict them on all other counts.
BTW, the fact that they were bad at covering their tracks does not excuse them from their actions. It just means they were bad at more than being cops; they were bad at being criminals too.
(Score: 1) by cngn on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:45PM
I may be naïve in asking this, but why should they have the right to destroy and of the security cameras or the DVR, as this was the normal security setup in this shop, they weren't being filmed or recorded by a specific individual of the public, rather by a security system.
No matter the law applicable shouldn't this be deemed as the destruction of public property first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @12:44AM
the equipment was in the store as I read it. So, destruction of private property.
But better is destruction of evidence. The cameras recorded them coming into the shop.
(Score: 4, Funny) by mendax on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:57PM
These cops should be shitting in their pants about now. No judge in his right mind would suppress that video. There is no legal basis for doing so. So, the result will be the following:
I won't shed any tears for them. But their families are another matter. I have compassion for them.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @01:29AM
Wrong. They'll get off scot-free because they're cops. Cops literally get away with murder, you really think raiding a drug dealer will result in any kind of punishment?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 10 2015, @06:19AM
Actually they'll probably get a few weeks paid leave of absence until all this blows over then life will resume. But I'm cynical like that.