<p>
</p>
<p>And if the police create a problem? Or is that just not supposed to happen?</p>
<p>Silvermoonlock - There are other interpretations for the officer’s behaviors in Rochester … but you get a pass from me, as I believe it’s actually harder to the spouse of a policeman that is to be a policeman. [Full Disclosure: My niece is married to an inner-city cop.]</p>
<p>Cuse: Where to you draw the line at police misbehavior? That Oakland Transit Cop spent 12 months in prison for shooting a young black man in the back while fellow officers held him down. Where does that fall on the misbehavior scale? How much prison time would you or I get if we did the exact same thing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the police create a problem, then I would advise people to comply with the officer’s instructions, and then hire an attorney later. No reason to willfully antagonize someone who is armed with a tazer and a gun. Many of the problems that result in people having problems with the police could be avoided if said person chose to remove themselves from the situation rather than seeking to escalate it further.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The cop thought he had grabbed his tazer, when in fact he had grabbed his handgun. He (the cop) got what he deserved. He made a mistake and paid the price for it. Sad situation all the way around.</p>
<p>I mentioned this on another thread, so I wasn’t going to bring it up, but I wanted to give another story where cops are not always the heroes. My son, who was 11 and very small for his age at the time, watched the cops pull up and question his black friend (age 12-13) and begin to search his backpack. the kids crime? Running down the sidewalk because he was late for an afternoon dance class that my own kids was running to. When my DS saw what was happening, he stopped and yelled to his friend that he didn’t need to consent to a backpack search. The officer then came over to my own DS, demanded that he also consent to a search and they started questioning him. DS refused to speak, invoked the right to speak to his parents and attorney. they cuffed him, put him in a suad car and threatened to arrest him for distrubing the peace (yelling across the street) and impeding a police investigation. DS kept quiet, and his friend ran home where his mother called me at work. The officers still hadn’t called me or my husband when we arrived with our attorney 50 minutes later. The officers then uncuffed him and said no charges were to be filed.
Did he deserve this? NO. Did the cops overstep their boundaries? Absolutely. The Supreme Court just ruled that officers need to take age into consideration when it comes to Miranda. These SOBs hadn’t even chanrged him with anything. We had always taught him his rights, and he posed no threat. The cops obviously didn’t even really care about the “initial stop” since they let him go in order to harass my son.
This occurred in a Bay Area university town, where the officers deal with a lot of petty theft, robbery, etc. Copwatch is active in this town (where citizens videotape arrests to document/prevent police abuse). I have extended family that is in law enforcement, so I am not blatently against all police, but I am not sorry that my son learned early to keep quiet and always ask for a lawyer.</p>
<p>Wow, your poor S must have been very upset and scared! I’d have been very angry that neither you nor your H nor attorney had been called. Eye-opening lesson for your S to learn at such a tender age!</p>
<p>Watch “Don’t Talk to the Cops” part I and II video on you tube. I heard this on another thread. It really is excellent. It’s a class by a law professor with an officer as a guest.
The ACLU has a series starting with “Busted…” on you tube also. (I can’t remember the full title right now). Listen to all of them. They should be required watching and re-watching.
Both videos have good info you need to know anyway (I learned a lot!) and especially as a young adult who may find themselves caught in a situation with others no matter how innocent they themselves may be. Can’t recommend them enough.
The best thing about the videos is the re-enactments (great scenarios!) and suggested wording to remain respectful to the law and still maintain your rights.</p>
<p>Charges dismissed in the case of the Rochester woman discussed above.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Charge</a> dismissed against woman who videotaped police encounter - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/27/new.york.police.video/]Charge”>http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/27/new.york.police.video/)</p>
<p>As expected.</p>
<p>You know, it’s stories like this that make harassing all cops just so sweet to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It happens. Given her history, I’m sure she’ll be getting herself arrested again very shortly.</p>
<p>I hope she wins the civil suit and has those cops doing her lawn work by the end of the month. She might even train them to find truffles for her.</p>
<p>“The cop thought he had grabbed his tazer, when in fact he had grabbed his handgun. He (the cop) got what he deserved. He made a mistake and paid the price for it.”</p>
<p>Cop SAID he thought he grabbed his tazer … we have only his statement as proof. As for the cop getting what he deserved, well 12 months seems a little light for shooting a helpless (and as it turns out, innocent) man in the back. You might show a little sympathy for the victim. Or do you feel that he got what he deserved too?</p>
<p>“I hope she wins the civil suit …”</p>
<p>A simple apology from the Chief of Police should suffice. $60 Million for an evening in jail seems excessive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to a jury of the officer’s peers, it WAS an accidental shooting based on all of the evidence provided. There was no evidence to indicate that the shooting was intentional, so accusing the officer of a charge that he was not convicted of is reaching in my opinion.</p>
<p>And no, the victim did not deserve to die. It was a tragic situation all the way around.</p>
<p>^ Cuse - I didn’t accuse the cop of anything. Allow me to amend that. I accuse the cop of being a trigger-happy idiot unworthy of wearing the badge. “Oh no Sir, I didn’t intend to shoot that helpless and innocent man in the back … I only wanted to tazer him.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So are you alleging that you know more than the jury in this case? </p>
<p>If he DID intend to shoot the victim, then I would agree with you. Intentionally shooting an unarmed person in the back, in front of dozens of witnesses, many of which had cameras on them, and in front of several law enforcement officers is something which only the criminally insane or mentally incompetent would feasibly do. I don’t think this guy qualifies as either; he just made a stupid and tragic mistake. And, he no longer has a job as a result.</p>
<p>There are (rare) cases in which cops can justifiably shoot unarmed people if they still pose a significant threat. The BART shooting was not one of those situations and the cop likely knew this going into the situation, which is why he intended to taze rather than shoot the individual. I feel bad for the victim, and I feel bad for the officer. The victim lost his life, and the officer has to life the rest of his life knowing that he killed an unarmed man who was not posing a threat to anyone. Like I said, terrible situation all the way around.</p>
<p>Back to Rochester- I don’t like civil suits, especially when the rewards are ridiculously large. However, I didn’t like the fact that the cops were out with measuring sticks checking if the cars belonging to Ms. Goods’ organization were close enough to the curb. Pure harassment. I bet the Chief of Police has a major headache.</p>
<p>Onward, why is it that the savages in the ACLU are applauded for using the law to their advantage, however minor that may be, but when the police use it like how you mention the measuring sticks it’s harassment?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Great point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the Police decide to measure the distance from the curb of every car in town, if they decide to run a nondiscriminatory campaign to improve parking, it is not harassment. </p>
<p>If they decide to measure only the cars that they expect to belong to those who challenge them, it is harassment.</p>