Cops like these give the rest a bad name

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: slayer202
No use arguing with the people who feel like the cop did no wrong. Almost humorous...

I could say the same to those who feel that the reporter did no wrong.

Unless, of course, you can prove to me that what the reporter was doing was entirely legal?

"guilty until proven innocent".

...

anyways, i think that if the officer felt that the reporter had broken any local ordinances and wanted him to leave for that (not serious enough to merit an arrest), then he would have informed him. it would have probably happened on the filmed segment. (that's a rather long segment, and even if it had been stated before, it probably would have been stated again.)

the officer was being a dick. that much is clear to me. the local news saw an accident scene, and felt the need to interview onlookers. it's not a murder investigation... this is the kind of shit local news does. i dont think they fucked up... at least not from what i can tell in the vid.

Uh...police officers don't follow the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' bit. That's for the courts. If I believed everybody was innocent, how exactly am I supposed to arrest someone?

Sure, the officer may have been a dick. So was the reporter.

i'm not talking about the police officer you dumb shit. i'm talking about you and your automatic assumption of wrongdoing on the part of the reporter.

 

[slayer202]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: slayer202
No use arguing with the people who feel like the cop did no wrong. Almost humorous...

I could say the same to those who feel that the reporter did no wrong.

Unless, of course, you can prove to me that what the reporter was doing was entirely legal?

"guilty until proven innocent".

...

anyways, i think that if the officer felt that the reporter had broken any local ordinances and wanted him to leave for that (not serious enough to merit an arrest), then he would have informed him. it would have probably happened on the filmed segment. (that's a rather long segment, and even if it had been stated before, it probably would have been stated again.)

the officer was being a dick. that much is clear to me. the local news saw an accident scene, and felt the need to interview onlookers. it's not a murder investigation... this is the kind of shit local news does. i dont think they fucked up... at least not from what i can tell in the vid.

Uh...police officers don't follow the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' bit. That's for the courts. If I believed everybody was innocent, how exactly am I supposed to arrest someone?

Sure, the officer may have been a dick. So was the reporter.

The guy at my local gas station is a dick too, so what. A COP shouldn't be a dick though. This guy was abusing his power like a little girl

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: slayer202
The guy at my local gas station is a dick too, so what. A COP shouldn't be a dick though. This guy was abusing his power like a little girl

Little girls abuse power..?

Originally posted by: Fayd
i'm not talking about the police officer you dumb shit. i'm talking about you and your automatic assumption of wrongdoing on the part of the reporter.

Amazing, how the trolls can't make more than a few posts without spewing profanity and personal attacks. Maybe someday the mods will come through and enforce a few of the rules here.

I am under no obligation to assume innocence.

 

[slayer202]

completely off topic, but there is a problem with assuming or "pushing" of guilt by police officers/prosecutors.

Their jobs are to find the bad guy and prove him bad, respectively. I can't see how that doesn't become a problem at times. The cops are trying to find out who the guilty party is, and may jump to conclusions, sometimes being wrong. Even worse for the prosecutors. There are plenty of cases with questionable evidence, yet the prosecutor, trying to do their job, feverishly tries to prove the defendant's guilt, sometimes wrongfully. The law system is fuckedddd up, though apparently the best possible

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: JLee
Uh...police officers don't follow the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' bit. That's for the courts. If I believed everybody was innocent, how exactly am I supposed to arrest someone?

Sure, the officer may have been a dick. So was the reporter.

Probable cause is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The 4th Amendment is there to protect against unreasonable seizures, especially those of the police. You are indeed subject to the same rules as the rest of the justice system.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: slayer202
completely off topic, but there is a problem with assuming or "pushing" of guilt by police officers/prosecutors.

Their jobs are to find the bad guy and prove him bad, respectively. I can't see how that doesn't become a problem at times. The cops are trying to find out who the guilty party is, and may jump to conclusions, sometimes being wrong. Even worse for the prosecutors. There are plenty of cases with questionable evidence, yet the prosecutor, trying to do their job, feverishly tries to prove the defendant's guilt, sometimes wrongfully. The law system is fuckedddd up, though apparently the best possible

There are also plenty of cases in which the defendant is quite apparently guilty, but defense attorneys will try to get the defendants off anyway, sometimes wrongfully.

Unfortunately, we have an imperfect system.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: JLee
Uh...police officers don't follow the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' bit. That's for the courts. If I believed everybody was innocent, how exactly am I supposed to arrest someone?

Sure, the officer may have been a dick. So was the reporter.

Probable cause is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The 4th Amendment is there to protect against unreasonable seizures, especially those of the police. You are indeed subject to the same rules as the rest of the justice system.

Probable cause is based upon facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed, and is required for arrest (except in cases where warrants are issued- and warrants also require probable cause for issuance).

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a higher standard and is required for a conviction in criminal court. It is entirely possible to be lawfully arrested and then proven innocent by the court system.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: JLee
Uh...police officers don't follow the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' bit. That's for the courts. If I believed everybody was innocent, how exactly am I supposed to arrest someone?

Sure, the officer may have been a dick. So was the reporter.

Probable cause is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The 4th Amendment is there to protect against unreasonable seizures, especially those of the police. You are indeed subject to the same rules as the rest of the justice system.

Probable cause is based upon facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed, and is required for arrest (except in cases where warrants are issued- and warrants also require probable cause for issuance).

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a higher standard and is required for a conviction in criminal court. It is entirely possible to be lawfully arrested and then proven innocent by the court system.

Indeed it is but the focus of probable cause is still based upon the principle that someone is innocent. Even with differing levels of burdens of proof, the purpose of those burdens are to keep the innocent from the exacting power of the state. I don't really think we're arguing about anything. I mainly just wanted to point out that even police officers have to assume innocence to a varying level.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: slayer202
The guy at my local gas station is a dick too, so what. A COP shouldn't be a dick though. This guy was abusing his power like a little girl

Little girls abuse power..?

Originally posted by: Fayd
i'm not talking about the police officer you dumb shit. i'm talking about you and your automatic assumption of wrongdoing on the part of the reporter.

Amazing, how the trolls can't make more than a few posts without spewing profanity and personal attacks. Maybe someday the mods will come through and enforce a few of the rules here.

"waaaah waaaah waaaah someone swore at me on an internet forum."

 

[CZroe]

Before it turns into an arrest, I think many people are viewing this as if they are unaware that there is a person behind the camera adding to the situation by not responding or acting himself. That's a dedicated cameraman.

I just wonder why the cop kept telling him to take his hands off the truck when they weren't on it.

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: slayer202
No use arguing with the people who feel like the cop did no wrong. Almost humorous...

I could say the same to those who feel that the reporter did no wrong.

Unless, of course, you can prove to me that what the reporter was doing was entirely legal?

"guilty until proven innocent".

...

anyways, i think that if the officer felt that the reporter had broken any local ordinances and wanted him to leave for that (not serious enough to merit an arrest), then he would have informed him...

Not if the violation was his refusal to leave. How can you inform someone of their refusal to leave before they have refused to leave? God, listen to yourself DELIBERATELY taking it out of context. He told them to leave, they resisted with an attitude ("you'd have to kill/shoot me, first" = no/make me) which interfered with his job by forcing him to stay and deal with them rather than deal with the accident. Regardless of them being oblivious to any violation from their prior presence, they were clearly obstructing BEYOND that when he ordered them to leave and they stood around saying that he could shoot if he wanted to.

There is no assumption of guilt. The guy is clearly on camera refusing the cop's orders by telling the cop to shoot him. How is that NOT screwing with the officer and his duties at the accident scene?

 

[grrl]

IMO, if you watch the very beginning of the clip it seems pretty clear the cop had already told the reporter to leave.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: slayer202
No use arguing with the people who feel like the cop did no wrong. Almost humorous...

Sure, the officer may have been a dick. So was the reporter.

I'm sorry but the reporter is a representitive of a commercial agency, the cop is a public servent. So there is a world of difference.

 

[Vette73]

Even the department, after seeing the FULL video, says the cop was wrong and worded it as "overreacted".

officer 'overreacted'

 

[BabaBooey]

Not being a professional,power drunk cop....nothing new and that cop could have put him in the truck and been done but he had to be hardcore and abuse the guys with his great power...:roll:

Nothing new,I see it all the time but what are ya gonna do,they have the badge and the misplaced trust that they will do their job in a professional manner,but only a small number actually do.
I used to date a local sheriff's daughter back in the day and they were more crooked than the guys they locked up !!!

But this is why I stay out of their way and situations that put me involved with any LEO as you never know what kind you will come across.
Now don't get me wrong I know a number of police officers through out the metro from my repo work and they are fine LEO'S but there are alot more that are not so much the pro.

 

[Kanalua]

FUnny...if something happened while Bush was president you'd get all the moonbats coming out saying this is the new suppression of the media spear-headed by Bush Co.

Now...crickets...all of the sudden the state is your trusted big brother who will tell you what is good and safe for you...

OBEY
PROCREATE

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
FUnny...if something happened while Bush was president you'd get all the moonbats coming out saying this is the new suppression of the media spear-headed by Bush Co.

Now...crickets...all of the sudden the state is your trusted big brother who will tell you what is good and safe for you...

OBEY
PROCREATE

Might want to change your foil hat, somethings are getting out.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Indeed it is but the focus of probable cause is still based upon the principle that someone is innocent. Even with differing levels of burdens of proof, the purpose of those burdens are to keep the innocent from the exacting power of the state. I don't really think we're arguing about anything. I mainly just wanted to point out that even police officers have to assume innocence to a varying level.

Okay then...

Originally posted by: Fayd
"waaaah waaaah waaaah someone swore at me on an internet forum."

It's not the first time, and it won't be the last. I just find it interesting how certain people reach a point at which they are unable to discuss things in a mature fashion.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Indeed it is but the focus of probable cause is still based upon the principle that someone is innocent. Even with differing levels of burdens of proof, the purpose of those burdens are to keep the innocent from the exacting power of the state. I don't really think we're arguing about anything. I mainly just wanted to point out that even police officers have to assume innocence to a varying level.

Okay then...

Originally posted by: Fayd
"waaaah waaaah waaaah someone swore at me on an internet forum."

It's not the first time, and it won't be the last. I just find it interesting how certain people reach a point at which they are unable to discuss things in a mature fashion.

i am under no obligation to maintain a mature style of discussion.

 

[RoloMather]

This is a win for the reporter. He made more news than he could ever have.

 

[Kirby]

I find it amazing that people try to argue with JLee about the correct procedure to handle a situation like this.

Since he does it for a living, I would sorta assume he would know more than the average person who gets their "knowledge" from youtube videos.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
I find it amazing that people try to argue with JLee about the correct procedure to handle a situation like this.

Since he does it for a living, I would sorta assume he would know more than the average person who gets their "knowledge" from youtube videos.

Right, and because he does this for a living he is going to be biased. Its only natural and I dont fault him for taking up for a fellow officer. Right or wrong, I tend to side with fellow IT folk unless I'm given damn good reason not to

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Even the department, after seeing the FULL video, says the cop was wrong and worded it as "overreacted".

officer 'overreacted'

QFT

 

[waggy]

i do have to say after watching it again and thinking on it yeah the officer did overreact.

they were in NO danger of getting hurt (the officer ignored others standign around) . Since they were in no danger and not interfearing with the crime scene he had no right to arrest them.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: waggy
i do have to say after watching it again and thinking on it yeah the officer did overreact.

they were in NO danger of getting hurt (the officer ignored others standign around) . Since they were in no danger and not interfearing with the crime scene he had no right to arrest them.

Depending on how Texas law is written, you could easily be wrong here.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer

Originally posted by: nkgreen
I find it amazing that people try to argue with JLee about the correct procedure to handle a situation like this.

Since he does it for a living, I would sorta assume he would know more than the average person who gets their "knowledge" from youtube videos.

Right, and because he does this for a living he is going to be biased. Its only natural and I dont fault him for taking up for a fellow officer. Right or wrong, I tend to side with fellow IT folk unless I'm given damn good reason not to

Don't overthink what I wrote. I'm just saying that he does know the correct procedure and the law, most likely a hell of a lot more than the rest of us.