Police behaving badly

[PrimalxConvoy]

An Oregon woman’s nude cellphone photos ended up the talk of town. She tracked it back to the DA

Grant County District Attorney Jim Carpenter's search of the phone without a warrant was “a troubling example of the intrusion on Fourth Amendment rights,” a federal appellate court ruled.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[Rhinox]

Qualified immunity continues to be a problem. Obviously it won't be addressed while we go through this civil war prologue we're currently in, but hopefully it will be addressed in our lifetime.

 

[NovaSaber]

Redacted FBI Documents Show Plot to Kill Occupy Leaders If 'Deemed Necessary' - Truthdig

"Did the FBI ignore, or even abet, a plot to assassinate Occupy Houston leaders?" asks journalist Dave Lindorff at WhoWhatWhy. "What did the Feds know? Whom did they warn? And what did the Houston Police know?"

www.truthdig.com

 

[Pale Rider]

 

[Rhinox]

I'm a big proponent of cops having to spend time working in a prison or jail before letting them out on the streets. One of the big things you deal with in incarceration is medical issues. It's not the same as getting an EMS cert or anything like that, but it does give you enough so that you don't tase a guy coming off a grand mal.

 

[Pale Rider]

 

[Anonymous X]

Molly Ploofkins (@mollyploofkins.bsky.social)

Chicago police department out in force protecting a Tesla dealership.

bsky.app

Remember all those dystopian cyberpunk novels, and films like Robocop, where the government and corporations are one and the same? Yeah.

 

[Pale Rider]

 

[Pale Rider]

 

[Pale Rider]

 

[Rhinox]

. . . Yeah, no. His name was on the warrant. It was his nephew or cousin or whatever, but they were both named 'Jerry Reason'. He identified himself as such and the warrant had that name on it.
This one is just propaganda against cops. They were more aggressive than I'd have liked to see, but his name was on the paper.

 

[Pale Rider]

But he showed his ID, which proved he wasn't the right person, and at least two of the deputies already knew him personally.

Even after confirming he wasn't the suspect, they still detained him, used force, and later discussed whether they could justify an arrest anyway.

 

[Rhinox]

But he showed his ID, which proved he wasn't the right person, and at least two of the deputies already knew him personally.

Even after confirming he wasn't the suspect, they still detained him, used force, and later discussed whether they could justify an arrest anyway.

You're confusing the timeline.
1: they stopped him. Said they had a warrant, asked for his name.
2: He gave his name, the same name on the warrant.
3: arguing.
4: Warrant check. Says the name he gave.
5: Detainment. The force may have been a bit much, but considering the temper he'd shown, it was I think within acceptable range. They didn't slam him or break anything. They put hands on and detained him.
6: Talked to him, here is where he's fully recognized by one of the other deputies. Name remains on the warrant.
7: They ask and find out he is not the guy from the warrant, it's another guy, a relative, with the same name.
8: discussion

 

[Pale Rider]

 

[Pale Rider]

You're confusing the timeline.
1: they stopped him. Said they had a warrant, asked for his name.
2: He gave his name, the same name on the warrant.
3: arguing.
4: Warrant check. Says the name he gave.
5: Detainment. The force may have been a bit much, but considering the temper he'd shown, it was I think within acceptable range. They didn't slam him or break anything. They put hands on and detained him.
6: Talked to him, here is where he's fully recognized by one of the other deputies. Name remains on the warrant.
7: They ask and find out he is not the guy from the warrant, it's another guy, a relative, with the same name.
8: discussion

I see what you're saying about the timeline, but my issue is with step 6 onward. Up until that point, I get that they were following the warrant, but once they recognized him and realized he wasn't the right guy, that should have been the end of it.

Instead, they continued the detention, used force, and later discussed whether they could still justify an arrest. That's where it crosses the line for me. What started as a simple mistake turned into misconduct.

I agree that tempers flared, but if they had just done the ID check earlier and actually adjusted their actions based on the new information, it never would've escalated. Don't you think that once they knew he wasn't the suspect, the detention should have stopped immediately?

 

[Rhinox]

I see what you're saying about the timeline, but my issue is with step 6 onward. Up until that point, I get that they were following the warrant, but once they recognized him and realized he wasn't the right guy, that should have been the end of it.

Instead, they continued the detention, used force, and later discussed whether they could still justify an arrest. That's where it crosses the line for me. What started as a simple mistake turned into misconduct.

I agree that tempers flared, but if they had just done the ID check earlier and actually adjusted their actions based on the new information, it never would've escalated. Don't you think that once they knew he wasn't the suspect, the detention should have stopped immediately?

Yes, provided they knew the man on the warrant wasn't him. The names match, that's really the sticking point. Once they got full confirmation he wasn't the guy, the cuffs should have come off and apologies and all that should commence.
Discussing the arrest afterwards, that's standard practice. You always talk and debrief. Now, seeing if they could find a reason to keep him detained and arrested is not acceptable, absolutely, but talking about the arrest is perfectly fine.

 

[Pale Rider]

 

[Rhinox]

Watching this now.
Some things can be defended. This is not one of them. That cop is a ******* cheese dick and should have his credentials removed. He should never be a cop anywhere. What an absolute asshat.

 

[PrimalxConvoy]

After “glitter bomb,” cops arrested former cop who criticized current cops online.

Things have gotten a little wild in the Chicago suburb of Orland Park, Illinois, where local cops accused a former cop of impersonating a current cop on Facebook. The department also noted that a top police official had "a glitter bomb sent to him anonymously at the Police Department" and "was contacted by a suicide prevention hotline as a result of a spoofed call."

So, in a bit of a freak-out over this alleged harassment and impersonation, the Orland Park police investigated and eventually sought charges against the former cop—who said that all he had done was to create a parodic Facebook page critiquing the current departmental leadership.

The whole case was eventually tossed by a judge, who said that the Facebook page wasn't criminal, and now the former cop is suing the current cops for going after him.

In a world gone mad, at least one constant remains: People in positions of power are still absolutely losing their minds over petty social media dustups, reacting in ways that just make everything worse.

(Source: - https://vuink.com/post/nefgrpuavpn-...former-cop-who-criticized-current-cops-online )

 

[Pale Rider]