I work 9-5, and I’m hungry and eat dinner after work, so if there isn’t one on the way home, 8pm would seem like a quite reasonable time for me to go to the bank (my bank is open then), the grocery store, or (in this case) the police station.
Not to be all GQ, I was wondering also if this would concern the US 1st Amendment, specifically the part where you’re allowed “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
I’m not really rabid about it. Just posting a quick opinion. 
Here’s a thought: perhaps the reson those cops are on third shift in the first place is because they aren’t the best at public relations.
Then they really ought not be cops at all if they aren’t capable of dealing with the citizenry that they serve in a halfway decent manner.
Fine, agree to disagree.
Is that an excuse for the cops to behave like in your example? I will repeat myself (again): purely from a tactics standpoint, this problem would not have even existed if the cop could have said “No, we don’t have a particular form. If you don’t want to tell me what your complaint is, you will need to write a letter and send it to _______address.”
You might not like how the tester was acting, but the cop’s reaction was utterly foolish. The officer would not answer any of the testers questions; he became belligerent and finally threatening. I imagine that there is now probable cause to begin a civil rights infringement lawsuit against said cop. Whether or not it will fly, I don’t know. But I imagine said officer does not want to deal with the investigations. I would bet that, in years to come, this segment of the video will be used in training to show what not to do in this kind of situation.
Not an excuse but a possible reason for a lack of tact.
Which were posed as answers to the cops’ questions. You’ve never become exasperated at people who incessantly answered questions with questions?
Not so much so that I’d threaten them with a gun. Of course, I’d probably try to help them the first time they asked, rather than keep giving them a hard time.
Which only makes the cop even stupider. The guy is asking how to make a formal complaint, and Officer Dickhead is giving him another reason to make one.
Hell, for all we know, the officers that responded inappropriately could have just been covering the desk for someone else.
So what? He still should know better. I thought it was the job of the police to “protect and serve” the public. How is he serving the public, or protecting them?
I would NOT feel safe with a person like that on the force.
Heh heh heh. If you’re upset about that, check this out - the FBI busted a group of LA police for - guess what
Committing home invasion robberies. I love L.A. :rolleyes:
Unfortunately, nobody’s invented RoboCop yet.
(I would have responded to your early question, but Guin said darn near exactly what I was going to…)
It’s not a question of looking for a cop who is not human, Lute. It’s a question of was this particular officer out of line (and how far), and how common is this kind of behavior. I can sympathize with putting up with idiots who can make a complaint that can have a negative aspect on one’s career. However, this particular cop did not act in an appropriate manner. His actions were so bad that they caused a situation were there did not need to be one. Remember some of the other parts of the video? The two female officers (that I can remember) basically said what I have been saying upthread. They were polite; they answered the question of the tester. The tester left. Neither of those two women will face the possiblity of a lawsuit over their actions on video. This guy may very well. (As may the officers who “ganged up” on the car.)
I recognize what was going on: the officer was trying to control the interview. He was trying to get more information out of the tester than the tester was willing to give up by not directly answering the questions, and instead asking his own. When his questioning was not successful, he used the intimidation of “I will know who you are” by asking for id. When he couldn’t gain a psychological edge by getting that information, he became frustrated. The more frustrated he became, the more he tried to gain control of the situation. In the end, he resorted to threatening force. The direct method is not always the correct one, and in this case, because he let his frustration get the better of him, he may now have to answer to a civil liberties trial.
Might as well be–that’s the only way to ensure they don’t get out of line.
Sorry for the resurrection, but there’s been a relevant update.
Apparantly so.
That’s fecking ridiculous.
Reminds me somewhat of a case in Edmonton a year ago, when a reporter who had written some stories critical of the police was targeted for “special treatment,” with officers following him around looking for anything to get him on.
The whole thing blew open when recordings of radio calls came to light in which officers waited outside a pub for him, anticipating charging him with drunk driving. Cops joked that whoever busted the guy would “never have to buy another drink in his life.” As it happened, the reporter took a cab, and the cops expressed disappointment and said, “We’ll get him another night.”
When the story broke, there was a swift investigation – into who had released transcripts of the tapes to the media, and the possibility that citizens were illegally using police scanners. :smack:
After that at least, the Chief of Police was out of a job.
Right. Other than the few police who are also members of the Reserve, Police are just as much civilians are everyone else is.
And, Lute Skywatcher- you are completely wrong, and a part of the problem. Those weren’t just questions- they were designed to intimidate, and the officers were trying to scare and intimidate the potential complaintee into not making a complaint. In at least one of those cases, the Sgt. was IMHO guilt of violating the 'complaintants" civil rights and I hope he is brought up on Federal charges. The fact that an officer who threatened a potential complainant with his firearm is still wearing (AFAIK) wearinga badge and carrying a gun is symptomatic of a of a huge problem here. After that was aired, that Officer- if not several others- should have been put on unpaid administrative leave on the spot- pending a full investigation.
Ah yes. The Supercop phenomenon. I can’t fucking believe anyone is defending these soldier wanna-bes.
In your opinion. In mine, that was simply the response that the “complaintants” were eliciting. This was not unbiased reporting. If it had been, and conducted in broad daylight instead of during night watch, my opinion would likely be the same as yours.
I don’t understand why you think that civil liberties go away when the sun sets. I wasn’t aware that the Bill of Rights said “not valid after dark”. :rolleyes: 8PM is a very reasonable time to ask for a form.
Right, Lute. 'Cause there’s never a good reason to have a complaint during the night shift. :rolleyes:
I never said that. :rolleyes: back atcha.