SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> The Cafe >> 12 things cops don't want you to know.
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1277247623

Message started by Stimpy on 06/22/10 at 16:00:23

Title: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Stimpy on 06/22/10 at 16:00:23

Learn, print and carry this, could be useful one day :D
Full article here: http://current.com/1hs8o4c

1. Miranda rights – According to the new supreme court ruling these
are not required to be read to you, so if they are not you may still be
in handcuffs later. However it is important to note that if you’re
arrested you may still remain silent as you have that right, you also
may ask for your attorney. JUST SHUT UP

2. Right to search and seizure No cop has the right to search your car
without asking first or probable cause has been determined. If he
asks to search your car say no. If they have a warrant check it, SSN
mistakes and name mistakes are common. If you last name is
Johnson, a warrant for Johnsfield is bogus

3. You do not have to answer any questions a cop asks you; other
than Name, Date of Birth, and Social Security Number. After that you
can say I’d like to remain silent.

4. If you are truly innocent of a ticket or another violation; fight it
often times they are just paid and never fought, if you fight it you can
bring in all of your evidence against the officer to include his own lack
of report filing and dash cam videos.

5. If you are arrested you have a right to know what for and how
serious the charge. Remember this is by a street cop, if you are
detained by a detective it can be up to 24 hours until they charge you.

6. Once you invoke your right to an attorney they cannot question you
any further, if they do it is a 5th amendment right violation.

7. Some states take away state troopers power when they are off
duty, they cannot detain you, cannot question you and cannot arrest
you, be sure to check your local laws. The key to this is state troopers
as legally they are only allowed to enforce laws on interstate
highways.

8. If a cop asks you to step out of the car, ask why, you have a right
to know why he wants you out of YOUR car.

9. If you feel he was improper with procedure file a complaint all you
need is his last name and badge number. Cops do have to be friendly
and courteous at all times as they represent your state/city.

10. If you have a concealed carry license and the cop asks you if you
have any weapons, let him know you have a CCL and a CCW, for him
to take it away from you he has to feel in danger, so be sure to hand
him your license before your gun. Let him know what you are
reaching for unless you like the taste of concrete.

11. Lastly remember that you are the person paying his salary, if you
don’t like what he is doing no matter what it is, complain. The system
never changes if you do not speak up. Cops get away with crimes and
violations every day because of the lack of people speaking up and
the unions.

12. Don’t get into a fist fight with a cop as you will never win, you may
beat him into a bloody lump on the concrete, but 30 of his pals are
going to drop you. It is much more effective to battle him or her in
court. The more strikes against that officer the harder it is for them to
stay on the force. What you should take away from this is to use what
you have; your brain. If you don’t like his/her questions don’t answer,
if your innocent and arrested complain. Don’t lie down and take it
because he has Police over his name and badge.

...any cops/lawyers/etc in the forum that care to comment?

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/4168/copqn.jpg

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by photojoe on 06/22/10 at 17:52:53

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#
Don't talk to the police 8-)

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/22/10 at 20:17:38

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that criminal suspects must clearly state that they don't want to talk with police to exercise their Miranda rights. Silence during interrogation is not enough.
Criminal suspects may not invoke their right remain silent by simply remaining silent during a police interrogation, the US Supreme Court declared on Tuesday.
In a 5-to-4 decision, the high court said that a suspect in police custody must make a simple, unambiguous statement that he or she wants to remain silent or that he or she does not want to talk to the police.
Without such a verbal declaration, any incriminating admissions made after a suspect has been given Miranda warnings about the right to remain silent may be used against that suspect in court, the high court said.
“A suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling marked “a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination” dating from the Supreme Court’s landmark 1966 opinion in Miranda v. Arizona.
“The court today creates an unworkable and conflicting set of presumptions that will undermine Miranda’s goal of providing ‘concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow,’ “ Justice Sotomayor wrote.
Miranda v. Arizona is the decision that created the requirement that police advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to the assistance of a lawyer. The requirement is designed to prevent police from attempting to solve crimes by beating or otherwise coercing confessions from suspects. It is also designed to ensure that any statements made in police custody are voluntary and, thus, more reliable as evidence.
Silent During Questioning ... Mostly
Tuesday’s decision comes via an appeal stemming from a fatal shooting in January 2000 outside a shopping mall in Southfield, Mich.
Van Chester Thompkins was arrested about a year later and interrogated by police. During the questioning, Mr. Thompkins was advised of his Miranda rights and given a form to sign. He refused to sign it.
Nonetheless, police say Thompkins verbally confirmed that he understood his rights. Thompkins disputes this.
Thompkins remained largely silent during most of a three-hour interrogation. About 2 hours and 45 minutes into the questioning, one of the officers asked Thompkins if he believed in God. When he answered, “Yes,” police say his eyes welled up with tears.
The officer then asked: “Do you pray to God?”
The suspect answered: “Yes.”
Another question: “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?”
Thompkins answered: “Yes."
Thompkins was charged with first-degree murder. At trial, his lawyer tried to keep the incriminating statement out of the trial by arguing that his client had invoked his right to remain silent.
The trial judge allowed the statement to be introduced as evidence. Thompkins was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
On appeal, a federal judge rejected Thompkins’ claim that he had invoked his right to remain silent during the interrogation. That decision was reversed by a panel of the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
The appeals court said Thompkins’ incriminating statement must be thrown out because his nearly three hours of silence in the interrogation room amounted to an invocation of his right to remain silent.
Ambiguity by the Suspect
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court reversed that decision. In a majority opinion joined by the court’s conservative wing, Justice Kennedy said Thompkins’ actions during the interrogation were ambiguous.
“Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police,” Kennedy wrote. “Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his right to cut off questioning.”
Kennedy added: “Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.”
Writing in dissent for the court’s liberal wing, Sotomayor said the majority opinion “turns Miranda upside down.”
“Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent – which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak,” she wrote. “At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.”
Kennedy said Thompkins’ reply to the police question about praying to God for forgiveness for shooting the victim is a course of conduct that indicated that the suspect had waived his right to remain silent.
“If Thompkins wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to [the officer’s] questions, or he could have unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation,” Kennedy said.
“The fact that Thompkins made the statement about three hours after receiving a Miranda warning does not overcome the fact that he engaged in a course of conduct indicating waiver,” he wrote. “Thompkins knowingly and voluntarily made a statement to police, so he waived his right to remain silent.”
A Green Light for Lengthy Interrogations?
Sotomayor disagreed. “Today’s clear-statement rule for invocation invites police to question a suspect at length – notwithstanding his persistent refusal to answer questions – in the hope of eventually obtaining a single inculpatory response which will suffice to prove waiver of rights,” she said.
The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/22/10 at 20:23:01

# 13
Anyone who,under color of law, deprives any citizen of rights, priveledges or immunities secured by the US Constitution is subject to civil and/ or criminal penalties pursuant to Title 42 United States Code, section 1983, 1985,1986 and/or Title 18 USC section 241 & 242.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/23/10 at 08:35:47

I am not a criminal defense or traffic offense lawyer, so I have no special expertise in this area.

My favorite gripe is the "human monkey walk", better known as the field sobriety test given folks stopped for suspected DUI.

It is almost imposssible to pass if you haven't had a drink in ten years, and if you're older than about 25.

The cop will ask you if you have any physical impairments - say "Yes". I'm age 63. Can I stand on one foot without wobbling? Maybe some days; not others. Can I do the famous walk heel to toe for 15 feet? Again, maybe some days, not on others. I have the normal and natural impairments of my age group - I'm not as limber as a 25 year old is.

One thing you can't fake is the light in the eyes test. The cop is looking for what's called "nystagmus", which is an uncontrollable twitching back to center of your eyes when you don't move your head, but do move your eyes to the limit of one side or the other. This action increases when you're tipsy, and again, you can't control it. So tell him not to point the light in your eyes, as you have sensitive eyes (don't we all?)

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by bill67 on 06/23/10 at 12:26:30

When I'm drunk I do the Michael Jackson walk.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by photojoe on 06/23/10 at 12:45:26

2F2421217B7A4D0 wrote:

When I'm drunk I do the Michael Jackson walk.

Next time that happens, ask someone to make a video so we can all enjoy it :D

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/23/10 at 12:50:45

I get thoroughly pi$$ed off at the modern DUI laws and the way they are so rigidly enforced. Yeah, I know, your third cousin twice removed got hit once by a drunk driver.

The limit when I was a kid was .15. That was reasonable. Then we caved into MADD and now it's a silly .08 - that's two drinks in an hour for an average woman or small man. A drink is one beer, one 4 ounce glass of wine, or just one ounce of liquor. Have a double shot of booze, and be a gal of normal size who hasn't eaten yet - you're right at the limit.

My buddy got nailed last year at 10:30 at night, on a rural country road, just 200 yards from his driveway. Cop said he went left of center - sure he did, anyone who lives in the country knows you drive narrow country roads in the center when there are no curves to block your seeing up the road. You do this in case a deer jumps out, and to avoid potholes - you have the room to miss the obstacle. It was this guy's first ticket of any kind, ever.

Stupid sheriff - he should have just told the guy to get home. No accident or anything was involved, and the guy tested .14. Below the old limit, above the MADD limit.

Now, some guy at .24 who goes up the freeway the wrong way and hits someone head on - sure, throw the book at him. .24 is drunk.

We just need to get the limit back to reason, but it won't happen - MADD is too powerful and the media loves to use "drunk driver" in newscasts when someone is just above the limit of .08 - far from drunk.

My buddy is ready to start his organization - DAMM - drivers against mad mothers.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by photojoe on 06/23/10 at 14:18:56

Doesn't seem that long ago when you got pulled over and were a bit tipsy, the police would either call someone to come get you, offer to drive you home or let you sleep it off in the car. Ok, so I'm going back to the 70's which was a bit more liberal. People could smoke a joint on the street (i don't smoke, but don't have a problem with people that do partake) without getting thrown to the ground by an PO wearing a swat uniform who plants his knee in the back of the pothead's neck.

Criminal justice is big business. They more people they book and print into the system, the more money the town makes.

Our elected officials cave to pressure from anti-everything groups, and that's a shame. Not related, but does anyone notice how many liberties we've lost in the past 20 years? I mean, we're still taking our choes off at the airport. Mother's drinking their own breast milk before getting on a plane :o Give me liberty or give me death. I am not concerned enough to give up my freedom.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by LostArtist on 06/23/10 at 16:41:30

how many newspaper articles about car wrecks that have information about how MANY dui's the driver had before this fatal accident, I've seen that number up to 11 DUI's this is why the .15 was lowered to .08 to make sure people get the message this isn't something to screw around with and it's still happening people with 2 or 3 DUI's still driving around WITH a license, what's up with that?!!!!!

and you should drive on your side of the road, dang it!! I know it's a minor law but it's still a law and there's still a good reason for it, traffic goes both ways, it's not for your own comfort, it's for your safety and the safety of others, if you need to swerve out of the way of a pothole or something then do it, don't just make a habit out of breaking the law

*some of the above statements may be a bit extreme, oh, and you can all suck it! * <--- there's sarcasm in there folks :-/

edit: sorry

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/23/10 at 16:58:10

LA -

The reason there are so many people with multiple DUIs these days is two fold:

1. The limit is so stupidly low when in the past the same people in the same condidtion weren't over the limit,

2. Cops cut no slack these days, as judges don't either. Come to court some day and see the MADD women in the courtrooms with notepads, seeing what judges are tough and who is lenient - then they publicize this info at election time.

As for always staying on the right side - bull. On a straight, narrow country road in the midwest, that doesn't have a curve for miles, you can see oncoming traffic a mile ahead. Screw some stupid statute - I've hit a couple of deer at night, and it ain't no fun. Arbitrarily saying to never cruise in the center of a narrow country road is just that - totally arbitrary and without logic. Also, in this limited circumstance of a straight and narrow country road, getting over to the center a bit protects joggers, walkers (both of whom use my road) and bicyclists and motor scooters - anyone slower than you.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by drharveys on 06/23/10 at 19:41:29

A local celebrity (started the "alternative" weekly and appears on a weekly show on our PBS affiliate) reported that he had been stopped for a DUI, but passed the breathalyzer test. He then called a cab. He said that if he was close enough to the limit that his driving appeared impaired, he'd rather err on the side of caution.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/24/10 at 05:49:53

Dr. Harveys -

Erring on the side of caution is always good.

What has me so torqued off is the political correctness of lowering the DUI limit to ridiculous extremes to satisfy MADD.

None of us is perfect - we are all impaired at some time to some degree.

For instance, in Ohio we allow:

1. totally deaf people to drive,

2. paraplegics to drive in a car equipped with only hand controls - how well can they truly handle a car, especially in an emergency?,

3. of course, use of cell phones while driving, any time and anywhere;

4. unrestricted, automatic renewal of drivers' licenses by the elderly, as long as they can pass the vision test every 4 years, which only requires corrected acuity of 20/40.

5. one-eyed people to drive, who naturally have very impaired depth perception compared to normal, two-eyed people.

There are other examples, such as allowing one armed people to drive, who obviously can't control the steering as well as a normal person can.

So my beef is simple - some degree of impairment is allowed in many situations - I only say that the .08 alcohol limit is too low - that's all. Raise it back to .15, where a person is truly too impaired to drive.

An idea for someone who is unemployed and needs money - start a business where two people can come together in one car to a bar and one of the two can drive a person home in the person's own car, then depart together in the car they drove to the bar to get the patron who needed the ride, leaving the patron at home with his own car there. One of the big reasons many of my friends have told me that they have risked it and have driven themselves home is the hassle of taking a cab, and then having to go back the next day, via some means, to retrieve their car that they left at the restaurant or bar.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by babyhog on 06/24/10 at 07:15:16

Jerry, I must say that I'm surprised at your position on this, being an attorney, I guess. But I am with you!! I'm maybe 115#. I went to college, therefore I know how to drink ;) I have been beyond the limit plenty of times. Driven (stupidly) and found alternative ways home too. But... one beer these days would probably put me over the legal limit! One beer doesn't even come close to getting me drunk.

I was checking out at Kmart a couple days ago, and a lady in a wheelchair had checked ahead of me. She was waiting for someone from the store to help her carry her bags out. I offered that my husband and I would help. She accepted. We got out to her van, she remotely lowered the door/ramp, rode her wheelchair into the driver's position (it locked into place). She clicked the computer on, and drove away using hand controls (not even the real steering wheel). (She actually showed the stuff to us and explained some of how it worked... beside the point).
Do I think it is great that she can transport herself around, even though she can't walk? Yes, that's fabulous. But is she still more impaired than I am, after one beer? Absolutely! Can she react faster in an emergent situation? No way in Hades.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Mr. Hyde on 06/24/10 at 07:44:15

I was reading that in British Columbia Canada they've introduced legislation to lower the limit to .06 and then to possibly .04. That means that if you happen to have a beer in the fridge you won't be able to drive.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Charon on 06/24/10 at 07:50:12

If it makes you feel better, the limit for a commercial driver is 0.02. The slightest trace will put the driver "out of service" for 24 hours. Those who have a CDL (commercial driver license) have to be very watchful even when not driving commercially. When driving non-commercially the 0.08 limit is supposed to apply, not the 0.02. But I am told a CDL holder can be confident of needing an attorney if tested at, say, 0.06 in the car off the job.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/24/10 at 07:50:56

Babyhog -

We're on the same page. I think we need realistic limitations on the degree of all of the means of impairment that allow anyone to drive.

I just can't stand the way the whole system has picked out one form of impairment for a ridiculous, extreme limit, for political correctness and to satisfy the radicals who make up MADD.

We have a nut here in Ohio, Mike DeWine, running for the Senate, who wants the limit down to .06. He had a child killed years ago in an accident with a "drunk driver", and this is his personal crusade.

How many people know someone who had a bad accident with a totally sober driver?

Can I understand his feelings? Sure. But I still don't agree with them.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/24/10 at 07:53:54

Interesting about the CDL limit of .02.

Just an example of how the limit is extreme.

For commercial flying, the limit is two fold: At least 8 hours since the last consumption of any alcohol, and a max of .04. To me, that's reasonable. Having done it for years, landing a jet at night in the rain is a little more demanding than driving.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/24/10 at 08:02:23

Mr. Hyde -

Canada, unfortunately, is often the harbinger of things to come in the U.S.

The limit in Germany is .04, BUT, you have to remember that they have many autobahns with no speed limit, where one can drive at 150 mph if his car can do it. I have freqently cruised well in excess of 100 mph for hours on end in Germany. More demanding situations = need for a tighter limit. OK by me.

Again, reasonable for their conditions and their circumstances - stupid for North America, though.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by dasch on 06/24/10 at 09:27:04

we have .05 in Bosnia. Croatia has ZERO. That's 0.0!!! And they are a Mediterranean, Adriatic, very tourist country... Imagine that. You come to the adriatic coast and you can't have a single drink...
To me, tightening the boundaries is not smart. Make punishment radical, but loosen the legal limit. My city just passed a 50km/h speed limit law (used to be 60) to stop speeders. Know what? That is not going to stop them. It will slow ME down, all right, but it will not stop violators, since they never cared anyways!!
What is MADD anyways???

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by youzguyz on 06/24/10 at 10:03:15

Mothers
Against
Drunk
Drivers

MADD

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Tanker2Biker on 06/24/10 at 10:07:28

79767A707B767D717661747661130 wrote:

So my beef is simple - some degree of impairment is allowed in many situations - I only say that the .08 alcohol limit is too low - that's all. Raise it back to .15, where a person is truly too impaired to drive.

OK, I'll support this (even though my Son, not some 3rd cousin's friend) was hit by a drunk driver who at least had the decency to die in the accident he caused.

But only if you will support that when they do catch someone over the new limit, they put his A$$ in jail for a LOOOONNNGGG stretch, not one of these "Go to jail on week-ends" deals.

Since we have now raised the limit, we know it wasn't just 1 beer, and they should have known the consequences.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by LostArtist on 06/24/10 at 10:24:58

jerry,

so we get to choose which laws we want to follow based on our own logic???

awesome!!

8-)

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by dasch on 06/24/10 at 11:20:40

I'm with Tanker 100%. Loosen up, control often, and if I still break the law - punish hard! All these "preventive" restrictions don't do too much.

Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, huh? Interesting. I'm all for AGAINST drunk drivers, but .05 is (IMHO) not "drunk". Just as 50km/h is not "speed" for cars nowadays.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/24/10 at 11:38:43

"Drunk" is an interesting concept. What is "drunk" as opposed to "impaired"?

"Drunk" is a media catch word; nothing more.

As I said earlier, we're all impaired to some degree - unless you're the likes of Michael Shumacher or Lewis Hamilton, nobody can really drive.

Truly drunk, to me, is so far slammed that you can't walk straight, can't talk, maybe even can't sit up straight.

Below that is "impaired". All of the way from the .18 guy who runs a stop sign and red light, to the .24 person who can't realize he just entered a freeway up an exit ramp and hits someone head on.

So the problem is that we set a limit, and treat all people above the limit as the same.

My solution would be a graduated limit, with ever incresaing penalties. For a first time offender, I can live with a limit of .08, so long as the penalty is commensurate with a slight impairment one has at that level. Treat this offense like the typical speeding ticket.

Then, maybe around .12, stiffer fine, and maybe a 5 or 10 day license suspension.

Then, at around .15, get serious - heavy fine, 3 to 6 month suspension.

At about .18, get real serious - 10 days (consecutive) in the slammer, very heavy fine, 1 year suspension.

After .20, treat it as a 4th degree felony. 30 days minimum in jail, license suspension of 2+ years.

If an accident is involved with serious injuries, kick each limit up at least one notch on the scale. Each offense after the first one, do the same; kick it up one notch for each time after the first one.

But today, we in Ohio treat all violations the same for a first time offender if he exceeds .08, regardless of how high he was. Stupid.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by mikelhsr1982 on 06/24/10 at 11:51:51

Here is another tid bit of info. If you get a speeding ticket and argue it in court, inquire or have your attorney inquire if the officer calibrated their radar prior to shift. Dont know if it works in other states but I learned that when I was a police officer myself.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Tanker2Biker on 06/24/10 at 13:45:15

License suspensions don't work. Those with suspended licenses continue to drive and ignore the consequences.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/24/10 at 14:10:53

License suspensions do work for most people. Agree they don't work for all - some people have never bothered to ever have any license at all.

My buddy who got nailed received Ohio's mandatory 6 month suspension, and after 15 days of "hard time", got the standard work privileges - to and from work 5 days a week, home off the road totally by 6:30 PM, 1/2 a day on Sat., no driving on Sunday at all. I had to go get him if we wanted to have dinner together, which we did a couple of times. Again, this is the first ticket of any kind this 48 year old business owner had ever had - treating him like a child molester with his otherwise perfect driving record for over 30 years was ludicrous. And, he is a single guy - no driving at all on Sunday was about as stupid as it gets. And, of course, his violation was on a country road 200 yards fromhis home, no accident, just a cop from a sheriff's dept. that has a real reputation to begin with.

All depends on who the violator is - business person, steadily employed person - they work.

Bum, illegal immigrant, or the like - they don't work.

You can't over characterize a penalty as never, or always, working for everyone.

And, one more thing - a person with a single DUI cannot enter Canada for 5 years after the completion of sentence and probation if imposed by the court. Period, can't go there. After 5 years, the person can ask Canadian authorities for permission, but it may not be granted. After 10 years, Canada assumes that the person is rehabilitated. How stupid is that for a one time offender?

My buddy has a boat on the Ohio side of Lake Erie - now for 5 years he can't dock at any Canadian port.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Starlifter on 06/24/10 at 14:26:38

Jerry, I could not agree with you more on all counts. Let the punishment fit the crime.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Tanker2Biker on 06/24/10 at 15:56:48

2728242E2528232F283F2A283F4D0 wrote:

his violation was on a country road 200 yards fromhis home, no accident, just a cop from a sheriff's dept. that has a real reputation to begin with.

My buddy has a boat on the Ohio side of Lake Erie - now for 5 years he can't dock at any Canadian port.

Must be tragic to only have half of one of he Great Lakes to use. Does he Boat "not really impaired too"

And since we are looking at the confrontation with the LEO happening "only 200 yards from his driveway"; did he just materialize there? Or was he driving from wherever he had had the alcohol for some distance. Potentially putting anyone he passed at risk.

I am a big believer in personal freedom, but when your freedom choices put me or my family at risk, I draw a line. If your friend wants to drink until he is over WHATEVER the limit is, he needs to find an alternate means of transport.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Jay on 06/25/10 at 00:49:27

OK, I agree that punishment should fit the crime. I agree that M.A.D.D. is an out of control political group not really interested in their stated cause so much as the pursuit of power and money (my opinion, more on that later). I agree that our laws are arbitrary, stupid, and designed to punish the vast majority of law abiding citizens, while having little effect on the group they were intended for.
Studies have shown that driving and using a cell phone (one of my pet peeves), even hands free, leaves the driver more impared than if they had consumed 4 alcholic beverages.
http://www.jpshealthnet.org/JPS-Specialty-Sites/trauma/community-programs/distracted-driving.aspx
http://www.jpshealthnet.org/uploadedFiles/Medical_Services_Specialty/JPS_Trauma_Services/Brochure.pdf
Yet we have no bans on cell phone usage and, to the best of my knowledge, no increase in penalty for an accident where cell phone usage played a part; unlike DUI.
As for MADD, I believe in their cause. I don't think those impaired by alchohol (and I mean Jerry's definition) should be allowed to drive. I also believe that license suspension doesn't work. I've heard of several cases where an individual has been arrested for the umpteenth time for DUI, and their license had been suspended. In one case for a number of years, and yet this individual had simply continued to get behind the wheel of a car. As I said, I believe in the cause, I just don't believe in the organization. Several years ago, I contacted MADD. I had an idea that I had run by law enforcement who said that the idea had merit, and thought it would work. In Texas, we have a barcode running on the back of our license. My idea was to use it at the pump for preapproval before purchasing fuel. For the person convicted of DUI, the license wouldn't be suspended, it would be inactivated. They would be one tank of gas away from being on foot. Use the fines imposed on the convicted to fund the system, and make the penalty for aiding an restricted license holder in the purchase of fuel a stiff fine, and the same inactivation for 6 months. Would it eliminate every restricted license holder from getting fuel, no, it had some areas that needed work; but it was at least a starting point. Every person I talked with supported the idea, and thought it would work. MADD wanted nothing to do with it. I believe for the very reason that it might have worked. How can you grab headlines if there aren't any "drunks" on the road. I couldn't get a discussion started in Austin either, and I believe it was because of MADD's undue influence in government. MADD gets money from several sources, including well intentioned people who think they're contributing to a noble cause. Without the requisite number of "drunks" on the road, the coffers might run dry.
As for obeying every traffic law all of the time, I don't believe any of us do it. Would there have been a different tone with Jerry's friend if he hadn't been drinking? I mean, alchohol or not, he crossed the center line. That's illegal. How about running the red light at an empty intersection in the middle of no where that won't change because there's not enough metal in the bike to trip the traffic sensor? I've done it. Five miles over the limit? That's illegal too. Forgot to signal a turn? Oops, call the cops. "But, but he was drinking!" Yeah, so we throw the book at a guy 200 yards from his house, traveling an empty stretch of road. Meanwhile some drunk with a suspended license was probably on a crowded street making his way to wherever. Relax the laws, increase the penalty.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/25/10 at 04:52:42

Tanker -

My point is simple - the modern limit at .08 is not that impaired. Certainly not as impaired as a paraplegic driving with hand controls only; certainly not as impaired as a one armed or one eyed driver; certainly not as impaired as an 85 year old lady who uses a walker to ambulate. Do you and your family feel threatened by these drivers? If not, you sure should. They are far more dangerous. Thankfully, there aren't too many of them here, but in the retirement states like Florida and Arizona, they are a huge threat.

Many studies have shown that the simple distraction from the use of a cell phone is just as dangerous as a driver at .08. Yet, MADD sure hasn't jumped on that bandwagon, nor will they. The soccer moms sure aren't going to give up cell phone usage while plodding along down the road in a minivan or SUV, oblivious to the world and the traffic around them. They would rather hassle a guy or gal who had a tough day at work, stopped for two drinks on the way home, and got nailed.

I was simply trying to point out that we've knuckled under to another very powerful special interest group - the MADD radicals, and allowed the limit to go to an exteme that makes no sense, considering the other impairments we willingly allow.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Tanker2Biker on 06/25/10 at 06:01:08

I agree that those who insist on phoning or texting while driving are a significant danger, and I do feel the risk they pose. I would have no problem with at least texting while driving being against the law as well. I agree that many older people should not be on the road. When my Father reached that point, my Brother & I took his keys and sold his truck. Next to his death some years later, it was among the hardest things we had to do, but it needed to be done.

As someone in the discussion said, there are degrees of imparied. The problem is there is no objective way for the average LEO to be able to tell if some one is capable of successfully driving or not, so without the use of a set standard, most courts would not accept their subjective view of the driver's capability. I might be fine to drive at .08, but someone else might not. The problem is the "not that impaired" part. How impaired do you have to be to have your reaction time slow to where you are more likely to have/cause an accident.

The person who is 85, or has one eye, or one arm did not chose to be that way, they had no choice. The person who choses to drink past whatever limit is set, and then makes a choice to drive is in that situation by choice.

We may have to just disagree on this point. As you said about the polititician, While I understand your reasoning, I'm not able to agree with it.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/25/10 at 06:17:02

Tanker -

The Columbus City Council enacted an ordinance a couple of months ago outlawing texting while driving. It's a minor misdemeanor, meaning the penalty is a $100 fine, and no points against the violator's driver's license. The same penalty as J walking - crossing the street in the middle of the block and not in a cross walk.

Again, my point exactly. Assuming, as many studies have shown that texting is more dangerous than a .08 blood alocohol level, why is texting punishable by a $100 fine, while the same, or a lesser degree of impairment at .08 results in 6 points against the license, is a first degree misdemeanor (one step short of a felony), has a mandatory 6 month driving suspension, and the fine and court costs are usually around $1,000 at least, all for a first offender.

Ohio has a points sytem - if you get 12 points in 2 years, you lose your driver's license for one year. A typical moving violation like speeding (less than 20 over the limit), stop sign, red light, gets 2 points. More than 20 over the speed limits gets 4 points. Other 6 point violations are street racing, street drag racing, and a couple of other similar, very dangerous things.

I'm not encouraging driving at .08 - my only point again is the severity of the penalty for a first timer like my buddy who had a driving record over 30 years long with absolutely no other tickets for anything in his life. Just makes no sense to me other than realizing how politically powerful MADD has become.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/25/10 at 06:27:18

Jay -

I have no explanation for the person who has umpteen DUIs while his license is suspended, except to assume that he has an addiction to alcohol that is uncontrollable.

And, it's not an uncommon problem. For those people, I agree that a license suspension does not keep them off of the road. So, unfortunately, they must be dealt with harshly and perhaps jailed for a considerable period of time. But like those addicted to other drugs (alcohol is certainly a drug of abuse), as soon as they get out of jail, they are likely to fall back into their old ways. Solving drug addiction may be one of the biggest challenges of our generation. I sure don't have the answer.

I guess that I failed to make it clear that my comments weren't about an alcoholic or drug addict - they were about a 48 year old business owner who has been as clean as a pin until that one evening. This guy has never even smoked in his adult life, he's so clean.

For what it's worth, the bar where he did his drinking was one mile from where he got nailed, and the spot of his arrest was 200 yards from his driveway. All in a rural area with no highly traveled roads anywhere nearby. According to him, he never passed or encountered any car other than the deputy who sneaked up on him, with his headlights turned off.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/25/10 at 11:46:14

A blood alc. level arbitrarily set, with no scientific data, tests on people to see at what point the average person becomes actually impaired ( & keep in mind, "impaired" is something we all live with, to a point. Everyone is someowhat preoccupied, may have a headache or be tired, etc, few people are 100% while they are driving, AND, my 100% may not allow me to be as good a driver as you at 80%) & pass legislation according to scientifically determined info. Setting ever lower Blood Alc limits is not an answer to anything other than the ability to mark someone as a criminal & harvest the $$ outta their billfolds. Setting the level lower & lower due to pressure by angry old biddies isnt the answer.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by bill67 on 06/25/10 at 13:53:16

I think we should do away with all public drinking,like we do smoking,think how many lives it will save.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Charon on 06/25/10 at 14:48:59

That was tried almost a century ago, Bill. It was called "Prohibition." It didn't work any better than the present "War on Drugs." Where there is a demand for a product, be it alcohol, opium, or loud mufflers, there will be suppliers - legal or not. If the product isn't legal, availability drops and prices rise to compensate.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Stimpy on 06/25/10 at 15:14:44

You all know what is a WAY bigger
problem than buzzed driving?

Medicated Driving!!!

These are 2006 statistics but 2010 new stats are
pointing to 1 in 5 persons being on pills daily:

Physician office = 90% / Hospital visits = 10%
* Number of total drugs ordered or provided: 2.3billion
* Percent of visits involving drug therapy: 75%
* Most frequently prescribed therapeutic classes:

o Analgesics
o Antidepressants
o Antihyperlipidemic agents
o antidiabetic agents

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/6334/prescriptiondrugsk.jpg

Yay!
:D

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by bill67 on 06/25/10 at 18:18:32

Every time I take a Viagra I find it to hard to drive.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/25/10 at 19:18:22

Why?Cuz it sounds like a card in the spokes on a bicycle when you turn?

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by forrest on 06/26/10 at 03:42:26

I know a few cops and if asked to get out of the car and you question them, even if you are innocent of anything, the rest of the event will become a lot more difficult for you.
No matter if you are in the right or not when you are on the side of the road the police have control of the situation. Resistance of any sort will bring more special attention to yourself than you may want.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/26/10 at 08:36:09

I call that thugish behavior.

If I exercise my rights & it "causes" someone to suddenly change their attitude, then that person is a punk.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Charon on 06/26/10 at 10:59:25

If you ever listen to police radio on a scanner, you will note they always refer to people as "subjects." They will tell you that word is used as in "the subject of this call" but I think it means they believe you are "subject" to them and their will, just as a vassal is subject to the king. The police are organized along military lines and are often called paramilitary. Many have prior military experience. The police, like the military, intend to be in complete control of any situation in which they are involved. That means they want to be the only ones armed, and be darned to the Second Amendment rights of the rest of the population. If you resist, you can be sure you will lose that battle, and will also be charged with probably several counts on the order of "resisting an officer in performance of his duty." I believe it was Mao Tse-Tung who said "Power grows from the barrel of a gun," and the officer is the one with the gun.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by photojoe on 06/26/10 at 12:33:58

I have no idea how we let it get this far.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by forrest on 06/26/10 at 13:49:05

How can you relate the duties of a police officer to Mao? Most officers are hard working honest people doing a dangerous and thankless job. Of course they always want the upper hand.....it keeps people from getting hurt. Anyone with any training in controling potentially dangerous situations knows that you must establish complete control or the situation can quickly go south.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Charon on 06/26/10 at 17:23:18

I didn't think I was relating a police officer's duties to Mao. I was citing the source for the quote. "Power grows from the barrel of a gun." The officer has the gun (and the taser and the pepper spray and the nightstick). Whether you like it or not, the officer has the power. If you try to exercise your rights and resist, he will use that power. You can also be sure he has radioed your license number and vehicle description, the reason for the stop, and the location of the stop before he ever got out of the car. And, if he doesn't call back fairly shortly, you can be assured backup will be sent to find out why.Even more fun, the officer is "on the clock" and being paid, while you are the one impatient to be on your way. You might win the war, later, in court. But you will lose the battle on the scene.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/26/10 at 19:12:19

555C4141564047330 wrote:

You sound like one of them, happily stomping on the rights of the people, as IF the average citizen is some kind of angry, hateful, dangerous person. yea, there aree people out there who hate cops &^ shoot cops, but for a cop to treat me as IF I am one of them, w/o having a single reason to, is just wrong. They appear to have been taught to do whatever they think they need to do to take cobntrol of a situation, even if it means shooting someone who pays their wages, just to make sure they donbt get a scratch. Im sick of the nhate filled brutality Ive seen from cops, shooting little dogs, while they wear body armor, as if that little dog is actually gonna huirt them,, fricken gutless bastards..

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by forrest on 06/26/10 at 20:20:29

Geez Justin, how many times have you actually been wrongly assaulted and hassled by the police? Or are we talking about the isolated, and very few, events that are in the news....but never compared the the thousands of exchanges that go on daily with the police.
I'm not a cop. I just appreciate the hard job they have that only receives media attention when the occasional "bad cop" comes to light.
I always thought you were semi lucide in your thoughts. But this painting cops as evil pet killers is just wrong. Where would society be without them?

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/27/10 at 01:25:31

You are clearly not payintg attention to whats been going on in the past few years. Cops shot a man, in the back, as he lay face down , IN HANDCUFFS, on a subway t6rain platform. Tazed an 86 YO woman, afyter standing on her OXYGEN hose, because she "Took a more aggressive posture in HER BED", you need to wake up & look around, it aint all bad, but its not uncomon anymore for the cops to act like thugs first. & yea, they DO kill the pets.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by photojoe on 06/27/10 at 04:37:16

My late Father was a NYC Police Officer. That was back in the good old days when cops were fun to talk to. You could actually meet one on the street and have a nice conversation about sports or what have you. I'm around cops all the time during work. I will usually say hello, and the young ones....well, I don't even get a response from them. They stare straight ahead not acknowledging me at all.

During a conversation about the state of Police now, someone said something to me that made a lot of sense; "The young ones today have very little life experience. They graduate high school, go to academy, get the big gun a badge and hit the streets." The ones that are really looking to push their new authority are the kids that had emotional problems, usually low self esteem or abuse from others while they were the ones without authority. This is not the case with all new officers, but it is becoming more prevalent.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by forrest on 06/27/10 at 05:43:34

293630372A2D1C2C1C24363A71430 wrote:

Again, since apparently you didn't read all of the words I wrote, those are isolated incidents. Everyday there are thousands of interactions between people and the police.
But whatever Justin, next time there is a drunken driver going the wrong way on the interstate who should be called? When there is a robbery at the corner 7/11 what should be done? Someone breaks into your house while you are away who will you call? Don't call a cop Justin because when they show up to help you they may randoamly taz your neighbor, shoot your dog and pistol whip you in the back of the squad car.
You know there have been firemen who set fires. Should they be all villified as piromaniacs? There have been airline pilots who have shown up intoxicated. Should all pilots be pointed out as drunks?
I know there is no changing your paranoid/conspiracy filled view of the world. But sometimes you should that off your dung colored glasses and see there are a lot of decent people doing jobs that nobody else will do; jobs that keep some order in this f'd up society.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/27/10 at 08:30:08

Yea, Forrest, I know all about the good cops, since Ive only had my 4th amendment violated one time in my 55 years. but, there is an ever increasing number of BAD cops out there & the general attitude is more & more one of a combative nature rather than being the helpful public servant. You act as if Im supposed to ignore the bad ones & only applaudthem as sall siants. I keep a fair mind, I see both sides of the deal, the good & the bad, & I see the bad getting more & more common.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by bill67 on 06/27/10 at 09:07:16

I've seen a lot cops and firemen act like a$$ holes in my time,I guess thats why they wear monkeys suits.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by forrest on 06/27/10 at 12:27:24

I never said you needed to applaude them all as saints; that is is just your typical overstating, and twisting, what was said.
Yes, in some areas the police are a little more combative......but so are many of the people they confront. Things are more dangerous out there than ever.
I was pulled over on my bike in Feb. It was 9 degrees and I knew I wasn't speeding or breaking the law. I was a little pissed that I had to take off my gloves and helmet; knowing they were going to get cold soaked. The officer told me to keep my hands where he could see them. It turned out there had been a stolen bike with the tags incorrectly entered in the computer that matched mine. Once he saw that my bike wasn't stolen he was very nice and pulled into the busy road with his lights on so I could get back out onto the street. My hands froze but I understand his caution.
All I've been stating is that you shouldn't use your broad brush to paint all cops as bad. And if you read your posts, as well as many of the others here, there is a central cop bashing theme here.
I'm sure we could pick any of our professions and dig up story after story about what bastards are out there.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by forrest on 06/27/10 at 12:30:28

03080D0D5756610 wrote:

I've seen a lot cops and firemen act like a$$ holes in my time,I guess thats why they wear monkeys suits.

Billy, there isn't a profession out here that doesn't have a lot of a$%holes.......but do the number of a%$holes outnumber the number of decent hardworking people?
Well except for career politicians.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/27/10 at 12:42:33

The "Good" cops know who the bad cops are, yet they allow them to stay on the force. How do they do that w/ a clear conscience?
& the Upper Level people who have to be involved in order to protect these cops from prosecution make me sick. IF they wanted a clean running department, theyd do a better job of prosecuting them when they act in an illegal manner.
Remember the cop who was choking the EMT guy? That was called for? Wheres that cop today?
There was a woman in La, in cuffs, looking just fine, walked off camera & returned with a bloody face. Nice going Mr Big Tuff Cop.

Police Shoot Family's Pet Dog During Mistaken Stop - Orlando News ...
Jan 9, 2003 ... A family has filed several complaints after police mistakenly pulled them over as robbery suspects, then shot and killed their pet dog, ...
www.clickorlando.com/news/1879473/detail.html - Cached - SimilarA Small Bag of Marijuana = Police Shooting Your Dogs in Front of ...
May 5, 2010 ... You just watched as police shot 2 dogs in the presence of a small child, ..... The dogs' owners told the police the dogs were family pets, ...
stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle.../a_small_bag_of_marijuana_police_ - CachedVideo of SWAT Raid on Missouri Family - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
May 5, 2010 ... Storming a home with guns, then firing bullets into the family pets as a child looks on = necessary police procedures to ensure everyone's ...
reason.com/blog/2010/05/05/video-of-swat-raid-on-missouri - CachedDC Police Shoot Family's Pet Right In Front Of Them | WUSA9.com ...
DC Police Shoot Family's Pet Right In Front Of Them. 3 years ago. Read Comments; Print; Email Article; Larger; Smaller; Subsribe to RSS feeds ...
www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=66686 - Cached - SimilarFamily Upset that Police Shoot, Kill Family Pet
Family Upset that Police Shoot, Kill Family Pet · NBCActionNews.com ^ | 9/10/2009 | Nick Dutcher. Posted on 09/10/2009 9:55:33 AM PDT by missycocopuffs ...
209.157.64.200/focus/news/2336470/posts - CachedOwner, animal advocates question shooting of pet dog in Westlake ...
Mar 8, 2010 ... Callaway, the Labrador shot by Westlake police when they .... My sympathies to the Cooke family for the loss of their beloved pet, Callaway. ...
blog.cleveland.com/metro/.../owner_animal_advocates_questio.html - CachedPolice shoot family pet [Archive] - Pets Hub
7 posts - 7 authors - Last post: Apr 24, 2006
[Archive] Police shoot family pet Dog Forums. ... For some reason, the metro police officer shot Andy. Neighbors that witnessed the shooting ...
petshub.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-57800.html - CachedGet more discussion results
Police shoot and kill family pet (Anti-Authority Crowd UNITE!!!)
Sep 5, 2008 ... A female police officer for the Medina city police, of Ohio, shot and killed a harmless family pet on 6/7/08 at 6:50 p.m. after responding ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2075671/posts - CachedEverythingVideos
ImagesMapsNewsShoppingBooksBlogsUpdatesDiscussions
MoreFewer
Search Options
All results

Related searches
Fewer search toolsMore search tools

Search ResultsOklahoma Police Taser Bedridden 86-Year-Old Woman [ch8206]
AllGov - 1 day ago

But instead of helping the 86-year-old woman, police officers Thomas Duran and Joseph Sandberg Tasered her, causing her to pass out. “Don't Taze my granny! ...
86-Year-Old Grandmother Tazed: 'Don't Taze My Granny!'[ch8206] - Right Juris
Officers taser 86-year-old disabled woman in her bed: lawsuit[ch8206] - Raw Story
Cops Taze 86 Year-old Granny[ch8206] - Cubed3
Before It's News - KOCO Oklahoma City
all 16 news articles

GOODY! At least this punk is going to trial, BUT, not because the cops didnt TRY to cover it up, they took all the video from the security cameras & stated they had"malfunctioned" ( Now, doesnt this take upper level people involved?) But, they got shafted because people took video from other trains. HA, HA, Ha.

Yea, there are some cops out there, giving the others a bad name,BUT, the militarization of the police has been going on for years & they are now hiring former combat vets who have some serious issues, IMO.

If you dont think things need changed, then youre not looking around & just because you can find corruption in another place, do you Seriously believe that means addressing it & dealing with it is unneccessary? If your kid lies & steals would you look at that & say "Its okay, all the neighbor kids do it too"?

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by forrest on 06/27/10 at 17:35:22

OK, cut and paste wins. If I had time I'd bet I could fill pages of good stories about law enforcement but quite honestly I'm not sure why I'm this involved. Your opinions really don't mean an f'ing thing to me; or to most of the world. But neither do mine mean anything to the rest of the world. So Justin, continue to look for all of the evil, corruption, and conspiracies through Google and have fun. And remember, it doesn't matter if you have the shiney or dull side of the foil on the outside of your hat.
Later.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/27/10 at 19:37:52

Well! ( Hands on hips) I guess HE told ME! Im sure glad to know that the situation over the years hasnt grown worse & that things are just Hunky Flippin Dory..

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/27/10 at 19:54:16

& this is justified HOW? Im supposed to ignore whats WRONG because there are some who arent so bad? THATS the thinKing that got us to where we are.
TGin foil hats, huh? Thats how youve been taught to respond to those who arent part of the herd. Imagine how much youd point & laugh if you had been alive when the Earth was found to not be the center of the universe. I KNOW whats right, but Im not af4raid to look at what is Wrong & not being strongly prosecuted by the cops superiors. The superiors work to shiel;d their thug cops. When & IF the upper management starts worki9ng to weed these thiugs out, my attitude will change. Till then, Ill point at whats wrong, daily. People who support it are part of it, if thats you, then hang your head & look ashamed.

By TIM HULL
ShareThis
(CN) - Police Tasered an 86-year-old disabled grandma in her bed and stepped on her oxygen hose until she couldn't breathe, after her grandson called 911 seeking medical assistance, the woman and her grandson claim in Oklahoma City Federal Court. Though the grandson said, "Don't Taze my granny!" an El Reno police officer told another cop to "Taser her!" and wrote in his police report that he did so because the old woman "took a more aggressive posture in her bed," according to the complaint.
Lonnie Tinsley claims that he called 911 after he went to check on his grandmother, whom he found in her bed, "connected to a portable oxygen concentrator with a long hose." She is "in marginal health, [and] takes several prescribed medications daily," and "was unable to tell him exactly when she had taken her meds," so, Tinsley says, he called 911 "to ask for an emergency medical technician to come to her apartment to evaluate her."
In response, "as many as ten El Reno police" officers "pushed their way through the door," according to the complaint.
The grandma, Lona Varner, "told them to get out of her apartment."
The remarkable complaint continues: "Instead, the apparent leader of the police [defendant Thomas Duran] instructed another policeman to 'Taser her!' He stated in his report that the 86 year-old plaintiff 'took a more aggressive posture in her bed,' and that he was fearful for his safety and the safety of others.
"Lonnie Tinsley told them, 'Don't taze my Granny!' to which they responded that they would Taser him; instead, they pulled him out of her apartment, took him down to the floor, handcuffed him and placed him in the back of a police car.
"The police then proceeded to approach Ms. Varner in her bed and stepped on her oxygen hose until she began to suffer oxygen deprivation.
"The police then fired a Taser at her and only one wire struck her, in the left arm; the police then fired a second Taser, striking her to the right and left of the midline of her upper chest and applied high voltage, causing burns to her chest, extreme pain and to pass out.
"The police then grabbed Ms. Varner by her forearms and jerked hands together, causing her soft flesh to tear and bleed on her bed; they then handcuffed her.
"The police freed Lonnie Tinsley from his incarceration in the back of the police car and permitted him to accompany the ambulance with his grandmother."
Tinsley says the cops capped it all off by having his grandmother "placed in the psychiatric ward at the direction of the El Reno police; she was held there for six days and released."
"As a result of the wrongful arrest and detention, the plaintiff Lona M. Varner suffered the unlawful restraint of her freedom, bodily injury, assault, battery, the trashing of her apartment, humiliation, loss of personal dignity, infliction of emotional distress and medical bills."
They seek punitive damages for constitutional violations, from the City of El Reno, Duran, Officers Frank Tinga and Joseph Sandberg, and 10 Officers Does.
They are represented by Brian Dell of Oklahoma City.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by Starlifter on 06/27/10 at 20:54:26

...from last March:

Federal Appeals Court: Seattle Police OK To Taser Pregnant Woman

Source: Associated Press

(03-26) 13:24 PDT Seattle (AP) --

A federal appeals court says three Seattle police officers were justified when they used a stun gun on a pregnant mother who refused to sign a traffic ticket.

Malaika Brooks was driving her son to school in 2004 when she was stopped for doing 32 mph in a school zone. Rather than give her the ticket and let her go on her way, the officers arrested her. They used a Taser three times when she refused to get out of her car.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 Friday that the officers were justified in using force because of the threat that Brooks could have picked up her car keys off the floor, started the car and driven away erratically.

The dissenting judge called the ruling "off-the-wall," and said the police officers had no authority to arrest Brooks — let alone the authority to use a Taser on a nonthreatening woman who was seven months pregnant.

*********************************************************

Increasingly the cops act like this. I blame part of it on the fact that many vets returning from Iraq and the many, many tours there are first draft picks when the local Police does their hiring.

A person simply cannot spend four or five years busting in people's doors, ordering everyone to the floor, no complaints or we shoot, and then get re-integrated back into society by being police.

Not all of this abuse can be blamed on returning war veterens of course, but far too many people are attracted to law enforcement because they are attracted to the gun, the badge, and the power to assert that authority and more often than not to abuse it.

Title: Re: 12 things cops don't want you to know.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/27/10 at 21:06:42

Gotta be a pub or a dem to be one of the mainline people in the usa. See outside that & you are labelled a kook by the mainstream. Everyone Wants to be mainstream, dont they? So, in order to not be called a kook, they HAVE to accept the insanity as IF it were reasonable.