Police Coverups, Conspiracies, and Cost to Taxpayers

No comments on South Bend, IN police misconduct since you were the one to bring up South Bend?

 

Then why not post in your positive thread that you, yourself, created?

As soon as you see something negative about policing, it affects the bootleather in your mouth in a way that you just have to "right the wrong" or something.

It's funny that you bring up Kansas, because their State Police were featured earlier in this thread because a judge ruled that they were performing illegal stops of out of state drivers and then extending traffic stops to detaining them without reasonable suspicion. The Judge said that they "waged war on motorists." But, that's probably cool with you, though. Violating the constitution is OK if cops do it, I reckon.

 

I've already acknowledged the guy giving CPR the first time you posted it. Should I take a play out of your playbook and give him a lil tug?

My personality? You are the most childish person on this board. I don't think personality is something you want to bring up.

 

I'm pointing out the problems in the system.. and you.

So, have anything to add to the topic at hand?

 

https://news.yahoo.com/kansas-newspaper-police-raid-warrant-withdrawn-equipment-released-marion-county-record-140050314.html


A Kansas newspaper raided by the local police last week had its equipment released Wednesday as questions remain over the legality of the initial seizure.

The Marion County Record published the weekly edition of its paper for the town of 1,900 on Wednesday with the headline “SEIZED ... but not silenced.” The outlet had been targeted on Aug. 11 by the Marion Police Department, which hauled away the seven-person staff’s computers, cellphones and server. Using old equipment, the staff worked through the night Tuesday in order to get the paper out.

When asked which laws the police department might have violated in executing the raid, Rhodes said it was too early in the process to say. First Amendment experts have said the actions are potentially illegal under the federal Privacy Protection Act of 1980, while others noted that the 2010 Kansas reporters’ shield law should also have prevented the seizure.

In addition to Newell’s accusation, Meyer said his paper had been investigating the town’s new police chief, Gideon Cody, after “half a dozen or more” anonymous sources from Cody's previous job with the Kansas City police began reaching out with allegations that he retired from that job “to avoid demotion and punishment over sexual misconduct charges and other things.” The paper had not run any stories about Cody because it couldn’t get anyone to go on the record or acquire his old personnel file.


-----------------------------

I saw from another source that they found two Windows XP boxes and fired them up to try and start running again. I love that they put a picture from their surveillance system on the front page.

 

Judge David Strong said he made the mistrial decision because of errors by a Brookhaven Police Department detective. On Wednesday, the judge ended the session early after Detective Vincent Fernando acknowledged under oath while the jury was out of the courtroom that he had not previously given prosecutors or defense attorneys a videotaped statement police had taken from Gibson.

The judge said the officer also improperly testified about guns found in the home of one of the men on trial and shell casings found outside the home. Defense attorneys requested the mistrial, and Strong said he had no choice but to grant it.

“In 17 years, I don’t think I’ve seen it,” the judge said of the errors.

Oof.

 

Holy crap.

Just a few bad apples, right? I'm going to read more into this when I get home. Thanks!

Maybe instead of buying them coffees, one of our posters can buy them needles. And according to another post on the forum, police aren't racially biased.

 

Lawsuit - Parts of this deposition are jaw dropping.

A lady was arrested for filming a government building from the public sidewalk. The arresting officer deleted the contents of the camera, and then threatened her with 90 days jail time if she wouldn't give up her ID. Of course she was released with no charges because she hadn't broken any laws. At one point, when it looks the officer is deleting the contents of the camera, she asks "Are you familiar with the 4th Amendment?" to which he replies, "Oh great, why do we always get the crazies?" I'm telling ya, the are tons of police officers that have disdain for anyone that sticks up for themselves.

How do two officers with a combined 47 years be this clueless? How do you not know the difference between detain and arrest, what is required for an arrest, when you can handcuff someone, not know the Miranda warning, when someone must ID, etc etc. Just wow. A Seargent and a Lieutenant. From what I can tell, there was a $100,000 judgement.

There's several on this board that would have done better.

Check out this shitshow.