Off Duty Cop Attempts to Arrest Man for Littering?

[RedBreast21]

That’s not what I said. I said some can be the same officer. Also the level of “ wrongness” is also in question on a lot of these “7,000” videos . Highly edited. Even the lackluster video above blows it out of proportion, is highly misleading and edited.
The detective was not going to be charged if any crime and retired on his own. And if that incident happened between two non LEO, there also would be no charges. It never rose to that level dispute Lackluster’s commentary. And when he was suspended, it was WITH PAY. Do you know what that means, don’t you?
Now @GOPerfect said he had 20 something complaints. He thinks that is unusual for a small department. Not really unusual for an active cop who made detective sergeant even in small department. I just asked around. It’s far from unusual especially if they worked Narco at any point in their careers .

The 7K videos used in my reply was simply to point out what 1% would look like. There isn't 7k individual videos that I know of or maybe there is. I thought it would be fairly clear by pointing out what 1% would actually represent and that over 99% of officers don't act in that manner.

I think that math checks out. right?

So whether videos are altered, fake or otherwise, is actually irrelevant as I made no claim they were authentic. I had ZERO interest in this particular situation and still do, nor do I care about its outcome and ONLY focused on what videos like these actually represent as a totality of the police forces out there serving. CONTEXT. That was my goal.

 

[Truebeliever]

The 7K videos used in my reply was simply to point out what 1% would look like. There isn't 7k individual videos that I know of or maybe there is. I thought it would be fairly clear by pointing out what 1% would actually represent and that over 99% of officers don't act in that manner.

I think that math checks out. right?

So whether videos are altered, fake or otherwise, is actually irrelevant as I made no claim they were authentic. I had ZERO interest in this particular situation and still do, nor do I care about its outcome and ONLY focused on what videos like these actually represent as a totality of the police forces out there serving. CONTEXT. That was my goal.

Yes, the videos are often not what the reality of what the “auditor” is claiming . They make money faking what happened or creating a situation.

 

[spat]

And traffic stops and stops for the small stuff is how major criminals get caught. And officer safety is a balance of that and doing enforcement.

That is *not* how policing is supposed to work.

The fact that you think that is *good policing* is indicative of the problem.

Your job is *not* supposed to be finding thin pretexts to conduct otherwise impermissible searches.

I don't care how effective it is, it shouldn't be done. The very concept is far to dangerous to liberty.

Think of it like this, asbestos is a fantastic insulator and fireproofing. Far better and cheaper than most modern alternatives. But we don't use it anymore because it has a hidden danger completely unrelated to it's ability to insulate or fireproof.

Your policing methods are like that. Very effective for policing, but far too dangerous to a free society to be tolerated.

 

[spat]

Not really if you compare the videos where the officer was actually wrong as opposed to what the video person claims— they often lie more often than not, especially those “ auditors” as to what happened or to what is the law. But compare those videos to the number of interactions police have . Then compare what the offense was — wow, he cursed at someone—to what the other person was or wasn’t doing . It’s not widespread real issues.

And that is the other side of the problem.

Far far too many interactions between police and citizens. Obviously if you double the number of interactions you're going to double the number of bad ones, and double the danger for everyone.

Most of the root cause for this comes from the legislature, there are just way too many laws and they are far too vague.

But it all needs to get fixed.

It may be too far gone. The whole government might need to be burned to the ground and a new one built on the ashes at this point.

 

[spat]

Yes, the videos are often not what the reality of what the “auditor” is claiming . They make money faking what happened or creating a situation.

If the officers allow them to "create the situation", then that alone is a problem.

I think the word you guys use when you do that to criminals is a "sting operation" ?

So, if the auditors hear about officer McTemper, and then push his buttons on camera to get a good video, the problem isn't that they did it to make a buck. The problem is the the department employed someone who's buttons they could push.

 

[Truebeliever]

That is *not* how policing is supposed to work.

The fact that you think that is *good policing* is indicative of the problem.

Your job is *not* supposed to be finding thin pretexts to conduct otherwise impermissible searches.

I don't care how effective it is, it shouldn't be done. The very concept is far to dangerous to liberty.

Think of it like this, asbestos is a fantastic insulator and fireproofing. Far better and cheaper than most modern alternatives. But we don't use it anymore because it has a hidden danger completely unrelated to it's ability to insulate or fireproof.

Your policing methods are like that. Very effective for policing, but far too dangerous to a free society to be tolerated.

Oh, Gawd. First of all. I am explaining legalities to you. Second, it’s how criminals are caught period since the beginning of the country .Have noticed that not only a lot of criminals are being freed but aren’t getting caught in the first place anymore ? There is a reason .
They aren’t impermissible searches, I am explaining that the totality of the circumstances allow this and are ruled reasonable. If you are a known felon and carrying an ammo box, it’s reasonable to believe there is ammo inside. If you as a legal gun owner have an ammo box in the car, it would not rise to the level of probable cause of a crime because ammo is legal for you to own.
Your problem is really more of what is illegal and who is getting caught , But blame the police. It’s easier than the people who actually make the laws .
Learn something so you can stay out of trouble . Learn what the police can do and can’t . It’s not by these luckluster videos . If that detective went all the way instead of a half measure. It would be a different outcome.

Cops get in more trouble for half measures than going all the way with something that they can legally . Sad but true . Using the bulls—t Lackluster video. He when hd detained them because of the 911 call, if he had placed them in handcuffs ( he can do this on reasonable suspicion) , then found out what the caller said, based the arrest on that — he would have less issues . He could have told them to put their hands on the car and a refusal would have been a crime in itself . Half measure.

 

[Truebeliever]

If the officers allow them to "create the situation", then that alone is a problem.

I think the word you guys use when you do that to criminals is a "sting operation" ?

So, if the auditors hear about officer McTemper, and then push his buttons on camera to get a good video, the problem isn't that they did it to make a buck. The problem is the the department employed someone who's buttons they could push.

The officer didn’t create the situation. The auditors did and edited the tape.
Everyone’s buttons can be pushed from time to time . Everyone . That’s reality. And frankly , some here would not last a year.

 

[spat]

Oh, Gawd. First of all. I am explaining legalities to you. Second, it’s how criminals are caught period since the beginning of the country .Have noticed that not only a lot of criminals are being freed but aren’t getting caught in the first place anymore ? There is a reason .
They aren’t impermissible searches, I am explaining that the totality of the circumstances allow this and are ruled reasonable. If you are a known felon and carrying an ammo box, it’s reasonable to believe there is ammo inside. If you as a legal gun owner have an ammo box in the car, it would not rise to the level of probable cause of a crime because ammo is legal for you to own.
Your problem is really more of what is illegal and who is getting caught , But blame the police. It’s easier than the people who actually make the laws .
Learn something so you can stay out of trouble . Learn what the police can do and can’t . It’s not by these luckluster videos . If that detective went all the way instead of a half measure. It would be a different outcome.

Cops get in more trouble for half measures than going all the way with something that they can legally . Sad but true . Using the bulls—t Lackluster video. He when hd detained them because of the 911 call, if he had placed them in handcuffs ( he can do this on reasonable suspicion) , then found out what the caller said, based the arrest on that — he would have less issues . He could have told them to put their hands on the car and a refusal would have been a crime in itself . Half measure.

And you don't seem to understand.

I am not asking for an explanation about the legalities.

The legalities *are the problem".

*we need to change the legalities*.

And no, we are arresting *far* more people that we ever have in history. Orders of magnitude more people.

The problem is that the let the bad ones go right back on the street.

If you arrested as many people 50 years ago as you do today, you'd have 4x the population of the country locked up at any given time.

⁰

 

[Slacker43]

I've had 2 bad police interactions. One for dumping garage on my street and I was threatened with arrest. A knock on the door, " I will arrest you unless you pick up all the dumped garbage ". I found garbage from every house on the street. Someone was stealing city garbage bags. The threat was unacceptable and unnecessary. No apology when I showed him. The owner of the property evn apologized to me. They found mine 1st. The street is named for my wife's family. The house is in my wife's name but I get threatened with arrest? If this happened today I would tell him to fuck off. I was much younger then.


The second was after we called the state police to walk an employee out on his last day because we saw a rifle in his truck. Just being safe. The cop gave us so much attitude like we were in the wrong. The employee wound up leaving in handcuffs for drugs in his vehicle. Again his behavior was not acceptable or necessary. I'm guessing we ruined his easy day.


I have a squeaky clean record and I don't have a good opinion of cops. Something is wrong. I don't have the answers but if I don't support the cops something is wrong.


Cops don't do themselves any favors when they are on their power trips. I've had good interactions as well. These two make me very cautious around cops. It only takes one time to lose my trust. 2 strikes and I have trouble supporting the system as it currently stands.

 

[Truebeliever]

And you don't seem to understand.

I am not asking for an explanation about the legalities.

The legalities *are the problem".

*we need to change the legalities*.

And no, we are arresting *far* more people that we ever have in history. Orders of magnitude more people.

The problem is that the let the bad ones go right back on the street.

If you arrested as many people 50 years ago as you do today, you'd have 4x the population of the country locked up at any given time.

⁰

Arrests are down . Dramatically down over the last 15 years or so. How the police conducted business 50 years ago was dramatically different too. They would beat the F out of you if you did any of this crap or didn’t do what they said. Then maybe arrest you.

 

[spat]

Arrests are down . Dramatically down over the last 15 years or so. How the police conducted business 50 years ago was dramatically different too. They would beat the F out of you if you did any of this crap or didn’t do what they said. Then maybe arrest you.

The difference 50 years ago was they kept the actual bad guys locked up.

You had to arrest them once a decade, not once a week.

That leads to a drastically reduced number of arrests.

Making an actual arrest should be a rare event for a cop, not a daily thing. They should only be for real bad guys, and once you make one the guy should stay locked up for a long time so he doesn't bother anyone else.

The solution is not more aggressive policing, the solution is more aggressive prosecution and *fewer* laws.

You shouldn't be looking for people with outstanding warrants by randomly stopping cars for minor bullshit. That's *terrible* policing.

The outstanding warrant crowd shouldn't have been let out from their last adventure. Problem solved.

 

[Tisto]

I was correct on that one. Ammo cans are reasonable suspicion at a minimum that there is ammo in them if not probable cause. And was there ammo inside?
I am discussing legalities here. It’s that simple . Yes ammo cans can be used for other things, but it’s still created probable cause there is ammo inside.
Instead of calling me a bad cop, maybe just thank me for explaining this legality to you. And then maybe you won’t carry ammo cans around in a car and give a legal reason for a search if you are prohibited by law from possessing ammo.
A lot of people here just don’t understand differences between “probable cause”, “reasonable suspicion “, and just “mere suspicion”, “beyond a reasonable doubt and “ in fact committed “. And clearly you are one of those people.
I am explaining police powers . If they should act on those powers and show discretion is a different question.
Do you understand how low of standard probable cause is ? It’s a 51% chance the person did it or the evidence is there.
Reasonable suspicion is simply being able to articulate why you suspected something .
You guys seem to get that confused with the other two: “ beyond a reasonable doubt” and “ in fact committed”.
If I was the “ bad cop”, I would not be explaining this to you and let you get yourself in trouble.

Your double standards don't fly. I'm certain then, that an Altoids container must contain mints, and a film canister must contain film. Probable cause couldn't be made for either of them, because that's what is expected to be in them. I stand by my assessment that you would use whatever mental gymnastics you deemed necessary to justify searching anything you wanted to. For me, that equates to a bad cop.

 

[Acer-m14]

@Tisto

 

[Tisto]

@Tisto

Be careful there Acer, you could get yourself in trouble with the Easter Bunny, not to mention one of the bad cops around here seeing how those cartridges are linked and therefore are a high capacity feeding device.

 

[Tisto]

@Truebeliever..... have you noticed that you are the ONLY person defending this asshole's bad behavior ? Nobody else is even coming close to it. You on the other hand, are making excuses for him. IF he had done this or that, or he COULD HAVE done this or that...and it would be legal and justified. BULLSHIT. He's a BAD COP. Well, actually he WAS a bad cop. Finally his bullshit got him fired. GOOD. Now weed out the rest of the bad cops.

In the past 20 years since I moved out of the ghetto, my interactions with police have only been caused by one of two things. First, I crossed the US/Canadian border twice a day, every day in a commercial vehicle and had to deal with CBP and the Canadian version of them, and the other interactions were always very late at night on back roads. When someone calls the police and reports gunshots in the middle of the night, eventually, a patrol car will cruise through. I don't break the law at all when I'm hunting predators, but you wouldn't believe the absolute bullshit I've had to deal with from the purple tie asshole crowd over it. Deputies have never given me any problems. They may check that you have a hunting license, and then the conversation quickly changes to something like " oh, cool...you have a thermal scope ? Can I see ?" Stetson wearing blue car crowd is NEVER like that though. Why do you think that is ? I have my theories....you won't like them though.

When I lived in Buffalo, I had to drive through the projects to get from my house to the highway. Certain intersections were drug and gang havens, and known for carjackings. I cannot tell you how many times I went through the red light at that intersection at 4 am on my way to work, or at midnight on my way home. Thousands. I got pulled over plenty of times for it. Almost every time, the city PD would fish for some bullshit "crime" that they wanted to find me guilty of. The ONLY reason I ever ran that light was for MY SAFETY. I ALWAYS stopped, and made sure it was clear. But, if there was a crowd of lowlife pieces of shit hanging around, there was no fucking way I was going to sit there at a red light begging to be a target. You can damn well bet that I told the judge that, too. I never paid a single ticket for running those lights. But you see, the city PD was eager to stop a white boy that stopped for a red light, then proceeded through it in the middle of the night, then try to jam him up on bullshit charges, BUT they had NO INTEREST in dealing with the dope slinging bad guys that did the carjackings there. That is BAD POLICING by BAD COPS. Funny, it seems to me that those are many of the same tactics you claim to use.

 

[Truebeliever]

The difference 50 years ago was they kept the actual bad guys locked up.

You had to arrest them once a decade, not once a week.

That leads to a drastically reduced number of arrests.

Making an actual arrest should be a rare event for a cop, not a daily thing. They should only be for real bad guys, and once you make one the guy should stay locked up for a long time so he doesn't bother anyone else.

The solution is not more aggressive policing, the solution is more aggressive prosecution and *fewer* laws.

You shouldn't be looking for people with outstanding warrants by randomly stopping cars for minor bullshit. That's *terrible* policing.

The outstanding warrant crowd shouldn't have been let out from their last adventure. Problem solved.

There is some truth to that about the number of arrests by about 50% of patrol officers but the other officers made arrests . They also had discretion that they don’t have now like domestic violence and drunk driving weren’t offenses people tended to be arrested for. Do you want to go back to those days? A weed arrest could get you twenty years in prison in some jurisdictions. Do you want to go back to that ? The police also shot a lot more people . I mean a whole lot more . Off the top of my head of one of the few departments that kept such statistics then , it’s something like 200+ compared to something like 25 people today.
40 years ago, that’s when police officers had to learn to articulate ways around some of those decisions because those “ technicalities “ didn’t exist before. Let’s keep going down memory lane . Let’s go back 60 years . That’s when those big supreme court cases came down . You know like Mapp v Ohio, Terry v Ohio. Miranda case. Before that, local police did not recognize nor subject to the bill of rights of the constitution. It only applied to the feds.
And if a police officer beat you up, you had little recourse back then.
Why were police respected back then ? Because they were feared-
And I don’t come from a family of cops. I come from family of lawyers on one side and academia on the other. One of my grandfather’s cases is cited in one of those famous Warren court decisions. My other grandfather was a victim of the police back then . It was not the good o’l days like you think. Your real issue isn’t the police today or their methods but rather the laws they are made to enforce. That’s not on them but the lawmakers.

 

[spat]

There is some truth to that about the number of arrests by about 50% of patrol officers but the other officers made arrests . They also had discretion that they don’t have now like domestic violence and drunk driving weren’t offenses people tended to be arrested for. Do you want to go back to those days? A weed arrest could get you twenty years in prison in some jurisdictions. Do you want to go back to that ? The police also shot a lot more people . I mean a whole lot more . Off the top of my head of one of the few departments that kept such statistics then , it’s something like 200+ compared to something like 25 people today.
Let’s keep going down memory lane . Let’s go back 60 years . That’s when those big supreme court cases came down . You know like Mapp v Ohio, Terry v Ohio. Miranda case. Before that, local police did not recognize nor subject to the bill of rights of the constitution. It only applied to the feds.
And if a police officer beat you up, you had little recourse back then.
Why were police respected back then ? Because they were feared-
And I don’t come from a family of cops. I come from family of lawyers on one side and academia on the other. One of my grandfather’s cases is cited in one of those famous Warren court decisions. My other grandfather was a victim of the police back then . It was not the good o’l days like you think. Your real issue isn’t the police today or their methods but rather the laws they are made to enforce. That’s not on them but the lawmakers.

I do not want everything to go back to the way it was.

Only the stuff that's gotten worse.

And I want more than 50 years.

The laws themselves 100 or more.

If it wasn't criminal in 1900 it probably doesn't need to be criminal today.

None of the new technology really needs new laws. Fraud is still fraud, it's not different just because it's email instead of regular mail.

 

[Truebeliever]

I do not want everything to go back to the way it was.

Only the stuff that's gotten worse.

And I want more than 50 years.

The laws themselves 100 or more.

If it wasn't criminal in 1900 it probably doesn't need to be criminal today.

None of the new technology really needs new laws. Fraud is still fraud, it's not different just because it's email instead of regular mail.

That is incorrect. 1900— a lot of the traffic laws didn’t exist. Criminal law? You could beat your wife, there was no such thing as child abuse by a parent , go look what happened to war protesters then. The police could shake someone down on the regular . And if you were a minority, you didn’t have equal rights . The good o’l days were not nearly as good as you think .

And the police could search you at will, shoot you if you ran away, etc in 1900.

 

[spat]

That is incorrect. 1900— a lot of the traffic laws didn’t exist. Criminal law? You could beat your wife, there was no such thing as child abuse by a parent , go look what happened to war protesters then. The police could shake someone down on the regular . And if you were a minority, you didn’t have equal rights . The good o’l days were not nearly as good as you think .

And the police could search you at will, shoot you if you ran away, etc in 1900.

Assault was illegal in 1900.

All that stuff you just described (except the traffic laws) was assault.

Most of the traffic laws are not criminal now. They are violations, essentially a civil matter between the owner of the road and the users.

Especially the stuff the cops were doing is assault and doesn't need any new laws. Just need to remove a few more people from the "well, they can do it" list.

Don't need new laws, just need the old ones properly enforced.

 

[Truebeliever]

Assault was illegal in 1900.

All that stuff you just described (except the traffic laws) was assault.

Most of the traffic laws are not criminal now. They are violations, essentially a civil matter between the owner of the road and the users.

Especially the stuff the cops were doing is assault and doesn't need any new laws. Just need to remove a few more people from the "well, they can do it" list.

Don't need new laws, just need the old ones properly enforced.

Sure, assault was illegal but if it was your wife or child , it was allowed. Both in and out of court. Is spanking your child assault ? That’s the way it was looked at then and even less than 20 years ago unless serious physical injury occurred.

By the way, in NYS, the luckluster video is not assault here. Not because it’s a cop but because of the actions . If it was a non LEO, it still would not be assault. Its harassment at best. The same crime the two “ auditors “ did to the officers if the officers weren’t on the “ allowed to do it to “ list in case law.

 

[spat]

Sure, assault was illegal but if it was your wife or child , it was allowed. Both in and out of court. Is spanking your child assault ? That’s the way it was looked at then and even less than 20 years ago unless serious physical injury occurred.

By the way, in NYS, the luckluster video is not assault here. Not because it’s a cop but because of the actions . If it was a non LEO, it still would not be assault. Its harassment at best. The same crime the two “ auditors “ did to the officers if the officers weren’t on the “ allowed to do it to “ list in case law.

Abuse of prosecutorial discretion isn't justification for writing new laws.

It is justification for eliminating prosecutorial discretion.

Having vague laws isn't justification for it either.

Write a very few specific laws that can be enforced 100% of the time, then enforce them fully all the time.

In reality, there only needs to be one law, with multiple degrees. You cannot violate someone's rights. That's the only actual criminal charge necessary at all.

Then you just need to get specific about the rights. I think they can all be boiled down to one as well, you have the right to the fruits of your own labor.

Everything that needs to be criminal is probably a violation of that. Just need to build the schedule of punishment based on how badly something violates the one law.

We should also probably get rid of most incarceration. It is good for segregating people who have proven they cannot behave in society, but it is a terrible way to punish law breakers. It's ineffective and very very expensive.

Not sure why we decided it's OK to take 5 years off someone's life as punishment for theft, but taking a hand is bad. The time seems more barbaric to me.

 

[Truebeliever]

Abuse of prosecutorial discretion isn't justification for writing new laws.

It is justification for eliminating prosecutorial discretion.

Having vague laws isn't justification for it either.

Write a very few specific laws that can be enforced 100% of the time, then enforce them fully all the time.

In reality, there only needs to be one law, with multiple degrees. You cannot violate someone's rights. That's the only actual criminal charge necessary at all.

Then you just need to get specific about the rights. I think they can all be boiled down to one as well, you have the right to the fruits of your own labor.

Everything that needs to be criminal is probably a violation of that. Just need to build the schedule of punishment based on how badly something violates the one law.

We should also probably get rid of most incarceration. It is good for segregating people who have proven they cannot behave in society, but it is a terrible way to punish law breakers. It's ineffective and very very expensive.

Not sure why we decided it's OK to take 5 years off someone's life as punishment for theft, but taking a hand is bad. The time seems more barbaric to me.

You are crazy if you think they can be all enforced all the time equally. Nor should they.
Example another cop from another site used, if an 80 year old lady whacks her 40 year old grandson with her cane causing a slight bruise , do you think she should be arrested?
Let’s use o e closer to your possible situation, if you display your firearm or “ brandish “ your gun because you think the three guys approaching you are going rob you, do you think you should be arrested? They haven’t robbed you yet, so it’s not self defense yet.
We can go on and go. Your ideals have to a practical sense hen put into practice as well otherwise people will make their own justice when the criminal justice system, can’t or won’t on a large scale.

 

[GOPerfect]

Sure, assault was illegal but if it was your wife or child , it was allowed. Both in and out of court. Is spanking your child assault ? That’s the way it was looked at then and even less than 20 years ago unless serious physical injury occurred.

By the way, in NYS, the luckluster video is not assault here. Not because it’s a cop but because of the actions . If it was a non LEO, it still would not be assault. Its harassment at best. The same crime the two “ auditors “ did to the officers if the officers weren’t on the “ allowed to do it to “ list in case law.

It was in Michigan.

Assault:

Assault in Michigan is defined as an attempt to cause physical injury to another person, and any intentional unlawful act or threatening action if the offender appears to have the ability to carry out the act and the act would cause a reasonable person to be in fear of impending violence.

 

[spat]

You are crazy if you think they can be all enforced all the time equally. Nor should they.
Example another cop from another site used, if an 80 year old lady whacks her 40 year old grandson with her cane causing a slight bruise , do you think she should be arrested?
Let’s use o e closer to your possible situation, if you display your firearm or “ brandish “ your gun because you think the three guys approaching you are going rob you, do you think you should be arrested? They haven’t robbed you yet, so it’s not self defense yet.
We can go on and go. Your ideals have to a practical sense hen put into practice as well otherwise people will make their own justice when the criminal justice system, can’t or won’t on a large scale.

The *current* laws can't be enforced all the time.

Hell, most of them shouldn't *ever* be enforced.

But that's because our current justice system is a train wreck.

Any system that was remotely well put together would demand all the laws were enforced uniformly.

That's one of the primary the differences between justice and bullshit, uniformity.

 

[GOPerfect]

The *current* laws can't be enforced all the time.

Hell, most of them shouldn't *ever* be enforced.

But that's because our current justice system is a train wreck.

Any system that was remotely well put together would demand all the laws were enforced uniformly.

That's one of the primary the differences between justice and bullshit, uniformity.

This is the reason why I turn my back on so many things.

 

[Truebeliever]

It was in Michigan.

Assault:

Assault in Michigan is defined as an attempt to cause physical injury to another person, and any intentional unlawful act or threatening action if the offender appears to have the ability to carry out the act and the act would cause a reasonable person to be in fear of impending violence.

He knocked the phone out of his hand. It didn’t go any further. We would have to look at case law and the entire law of justification to know. But as I said, he was wrong to knock the phone out of his hand. And the prosecution didn’t prosecute,
And if these two “auditors” did what they did to you at work, ( and they were legally allowed to be there) , you would have knocked them flat on their ass if you physically could. Be honest .

 

[Truebeliever]

This is the reason why I turn my back on so many things.

Dude, what is the environment you work in? We all do that except sometimes you will be forced to act. Then some people blame the cop for putting the cop in that position . Remember with body cams in departments who actually review all footage, one has less options sometimes.

Some departments are not looking over the shoulders of their officers all the time. Others are. I worked in both those environments.

 

[GOPerfect]

He knocked the phone out of his hand. It didn’t go any further. We would have to look at case law and the entire law of justification to know. But as I said, he was wrong to knock the phone out of his hand. And the prosecution didn’t prosecute,
And if these two “auditors” did what they did to you at work, ( and they were legally allowed to be there) , you would have knocked them flat on their ass if you physically could. Be honest .

I would not have been at the level this guy was when he got out of the car. This is what I have been saying, so many officers are at their upper limit from the start. In a situation like this, the cop jumped out of his vehicle looking for trouble. This is not professional policing.

I have jacked people up, absolutely. I will continue to do this, I'm very good at it. But, I do not begin at the highest level in simple incidents, takes a long te for me to get to that point.

I do not care at all what people call me or what they say to me. They are words that do not offend me. My emotions do not control me while at work. Maybe it is because I see what I do as a job and not a lifestyle. Nearly all of my friends are non LEO. I do not hang out at cop hangouts, I do not socialize with them. This is nothing but a paycheck to me. No different than other occupations. I take nothing personal on the job.

This guy, his life is nothing but the job. I promise he is the kind that thinks he is better than non cops. This is why he lost his mind.

 

[Truebeliever]

I would not have been at the level this guy was when he got out of the car. This is what I have been saying, so many officers are at their upper limit from the start. In a situation like this, the cop jumped out of his vehicle looking for trouble. This is not professional policing.

I have jacked people up, absolutely. I will continue to do this, I'm very good at it. But, I do not begin at the highest level in simple incidents, takes a long te for me to get to that point.

I do not care at all what people call me or what they say to me. They are words that do not offend me. My emotions do not control me while at work. Maybe it is because I see what I do as a job and not a lifestyle. Nearly all of my friends are non LEO. I do not hang out at cop hangouts, I do not socialize with them. This is nothing but a paycheck to me. No different than other occupations. I take nothing personal on the job.

This guy, his life is nothing but the job. I promise he is the kind that thinks he is better than non cops. This is why he lost his mind.

Usually not for most cops but but in some context. Anyone can get “ hooked”. And you know it.
How many times have you come from a child who was just raped to someone like this? ( I doubt this detective just did)
What was said on the 911 call? What other “ job” did this detective just come from? Did he have a prior interaction with them or these auditor’s just prior victims? ( they were just coming from harassing people remember). What do we know?
These guys deserved to be arrested for anything they could be legally arrested for. And if this detective knew the law better he might have had them. And before the peanut gallery jumps in, these two volunteered for very strict enforcement.

 

[Truebeliever]

O

I would not have been at the level this guy was when he got out of the car. This is what I have been saying, so many officers are at their upper limit from the start. In a situation like this, the cop jumped out of his vehicle looking for trouble. This is not professional policing.

I have jacked people up, absolutely. I will continue to do this, I'm very good at it. But, I do not begin at the highest level in simple incidents, takes a long te for me to get to that point.

I do not care at all what people call me or what they say to me. They are words that do not offend me. My emotions do not control me while at work. Maybe it is because I see what I do as a job and not a lifestyle. Nearly all of my friends are non LEO. I do not hang out at cop hangouts, I do not socialize with them. This is nothing but a paycheck to me. No different than other occupations. I take nothing personal on the job.

This guy, his life is nothing but the job. I promise he is the kind that thinks he is better than non cops. This is why he lost his mind.

what was the 911 call? That these two were threatening people. What did this detective ask them basically before he lost his cool? What is your side of the story? Then came the insults and attempts by the auditors to control the scene. The detective should had them put them on the car and controlled the situation at that point. Yes, we are supposed to do that in that situation- threats of violence, outnumbered, and they are uncooperative the officer until he knows what is going on