or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 7

post #91 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Because Obstruction of Justice, Assault, Harassment, and Disorderly Conduct just aren't enough laws to protect police officers -
Why is it police are protected by more laws than ordinary citizens? They're SUPPOSED to be the ones protecting us. Isn't that what they pretend to do when we pay them?

Just what they need. More "protection" to hide behind when they provoke a confrontation. As far as protecting you is concerned Harvey, you know they, along with firefighters, first responders and the like are under no legal obligation to protect or save you from anything. People in general need to get over this decades old myth. Some cases come to mind...

Warren vs DC
Castle Rock vs Gonzales

Both cases above are appalling examples of cops doing nothing or worse yet failing to adequately perform their duties and because of it people died or were severely traumatized. The books are full of cases like this. Back in the day it was pretty much understood that you were responsible for your own well being and if necessary defense. That remains true to this day and I really don't understand where or how this whole "they will save me or be there when I need them" mindset comes from. What's worse than that is how many people actually believe this 'they'll save me" crap when there's decades of legal cases that says otherwise.
post #92 of 6095
http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2013/06/10/man-charged-with-dui-despite-blowing-000-during-breathalyzer-test/
post #93 of 6095

I didn't realize Thornton is black, and I thought WTF, till I read these last two sentences,

“This is a case of D-W-B, driving while black,
” Marc Victor, Thornton’s attorney, told KNXV.

The Surprise Police Department did not comment on the case."


Then the arrest became clear.
post #94 of 6095
Fucking cunts.
post #95 of 6095
http://www.wtsp.com/news/watercooler/article/320703/58/Mom-Officer-shot-kittens-in-front-of-my-kids
Quote:
NORTH RIDGEVILLE, Ohio (WKYC) -- The Ohio Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals wants Humane Officer Barry Accorti fired for allegedly shooting five kittens in a home's back yard on Monday.

OSPCA Executive Director Teresa Landon says Accorti should be fired and charged with five counts of animal cruelty.

Accorti retired as a sergeant with the North Ridgeville Police Department a few years ago and was hired as a part-time humane officer with the department.

Police tell WKYC that Accorti did not work Tuesday, but will be back on Wednesday.

Accorti responded to a home Monday afternoon where a feral mother cat and her five kittens were living in a woodpile.

He allegedly told the homeowner that shelters were full and that the cats would be going to kitty heaven. He then pulled out his gun and shot the five, 8- to 10-week-old kittens.


Accorti allegedly told the homeowner that he isn't supposed to do this, but it was justifiable. The woman ran into the house to shield her children, who were screaming and crying.
post #96 of 6095
Should have drowned them instead--way more humane...for the spectators anyway. I don't imagine the animals like it much.

Really, though, why did they have their kids around when the guy came to get the cats? Did they tell the kids he was going to take them to a farm or something? Everyone knows feral cats get the needle as soon as they hit the "shelter."
post #97 of 6095
Uhm, they had the kids around because they live there. I don't think they expected him to shoot the cats on the spot.
post #98 of 6095
The headline says "in front of my kids," which apparently isn't true. OK.
post #99 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

The headline says "in front of my kids," which apparently isn't true. OK.

Another article stated the kids were inside the house and saw it from an upstairs window.

Why must you always find excuses for outlandish police behavior?
post #100 of 6095
Because no one else does? Maybe you haven't noticed, but the outrage machine that tends to produce most of these stories often misstates or omits facts to make them sound more outrageous.

Also, I hate feral cats, and I'm not much of fan of the effeminate popular culture that treats (cute) animals as if they were people. It makes no difference to me whether the cats were killed with an injection, shot, hit over the head, drowned, or what have you, as long as it's not excessively cruel. The end is the same.
post #101 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Because no one else does? Maybe you haven't noticed, but the outrage machine that tends to produce most of these stories often misstates or omits facts to make them sound more outrageous.

Also, I hate feral cats, and I'm not much of fan of the effeminate popular culture that treats (cute) animals as if they were people. It makes no difference to me whether the cats were killed with an injection, shot, hit over the head, drowned, or what have you, as long as it's not excessively cruel. The end is the same.

No one else does? The entire law enforcement population of this country stands behind their own, often regardless of how despicable the individual officer acts.

I hate cats too, but shooting them on private property when there are children nearby is in no way responsible police behaviour.
post #102 of 6095
Quote:
Maybe you haven't noticed, but the outrage machine that tends to produce most of these stories often misstates or omits facts to make them sound more outrageous.

Also, I hate feral cats, and I'm not much of fan of the effeminate popular culture that treats (cute) animals as if they were people. It makes no difference to me whether the cats were killed with an injection, shot, hit over the head, drowned, or what have you, as long as it's not excessively cruel. The end is the same.

I'm no fan of feral cats, but seems like shooting one near a residence is a poor idea.
post #103 of 6095
http://www.kdrv.com/taser-used-on-naked-i-5-wanderer/
Quote:
ASHLAND, Ore. – State police confirm the young girl found wandering naked and confused along I-5 early Sunday morning was apprehended with a Taser.

Officials say that woman is a juvenile. She was found just after 4:00 a.m. between mileposts 18 and 19, apparently unresponsive and unaware of her surroundings, and it was Adam Bednar who found her.

“I stopped the car in the middle of the freeway, I backed up. She kind of looked in my window, she kind of laughed and just kept on walking,” said Bednar.

Bednar says he drove alongside her while he called police. He says the trooper who arrived called for her to stop, and when she didn’t respond threatened twice to taze her. After giving no response, two little red dots appeared on her back, then metal barbs.

“She seized up and she fell face first on the ground,” said Bednar.

State police officials say it was necessary to prevent her from wandering further into the road and putting herself in danger. Bednar, who helped troopers apprehend the girl on the hood of his car, says he isn’t so sure.

“She wasn’t going off the road, she was set on walking down the freeway,” said Bednar. “And I think that, had [the trooper] waited for back up, they could have gotten her without the Taser.”

As for the reasons for her behavior, OSP says she likely has Autism. Bednar says whatever it was, it was baffling.

“I thought she was drugged. I thought she was on bath salts, too much meth, something.”

What is certain is that the young girl, whose identity is not being revealed, was not the victim of a crime. She reportedly wandered out of the house, and is now safe with her family.

Officials also say she will not be charged with any crimes because she wasn’t aware of her surroundings.

What should you do if you find a nude, autistic, 11-year old girl in the middle of the night? Tase her.
post #104 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post

http://www.kdrv.com/taser-used-on-naked-i-5-wanderer/
What should you do if you find a nude, autistic, 11-year old girl in the middle of the night? Tase her.

She should be happy she wasn't raped.
post #105 of 6095
Quote:
Now Officer Julian Steele enters the picture. When he finds out Ms. Maxton has children, he goes to their school and arrests all three. To protect the identities of the minors, the Court only provides us with initials. One of the minors is RM. RM is driven to the police station where he is interrogated. Mom is not informed because Steele instructed the school people not to tell her what was happening to her children.

RM denies any involvement in the robberies. Steele tells this minor that if he does not confess, his mom will be jailed and she will lose custody of his siblings. Frightened, RM falsely confesses, and Officer Steele records the “confession” a second time. RM is then charged with the robberies and is imprisoned.

The next day, Steele tells the school that he does not really believe RM was involved in the robberies. Among other things, RM does not match the physical description of the suspect.

Keep in mind that R.M. is now in jail, even though Officer Steele has publicly admitted that he suspects the kid of nothing. So, is R.M. released? Not quite. According to the Ohio Supreme Court (PDF), which heard Steele's appeal of his convictions in the case:

Although R.M. did not fit the physical descriptions of the robbers, Steele took R.M. to the police station and interrogated him extensively, using threatening and coercive tactics, prior to any attempt to offer him his constitutionally guaranteed Miranda warning.

Let's go back to Lynch:

Over the next week, Steele arranges several meetings with Mom under the guise of discussing RM’s case. One such meeting is at Steele’s apartment and he tells Mom that he thinks he might be able to get RM out of detention because he can cut through all the damn red tape. And he wants to help out because he does not personally believe RM was involved. Then Steele changes the subject (or tries to anyway) to sex. Mom goes along with the overture because she believes Steele is the one who has the power to get her son’s release.

That's actually a bit delicate. The court says, "During one of Alicia’s visits to Steele’s apartment, Steele asked her to engage in sexual activity with him. Alicia testified that she complied with Steele’s requests because she believed that he had the power over R.M.’s release."

That's right, R.M. is cooling his heels in jail all this time, even though Steele, the arresting officer, suspects him of nothing other than, apparently, having a hot mom. From the Supreme Court of Ohio, again:

The prosecutor mistakenly assumed that R.M. had been sent home on the day of his arrest. When, on the ninth day, she discovered that R.M. was still in lock-up, she immediately had R.M. released and dismissed his charges.

Even for the U.S. criminal justice system in its current state, this appears to be a bit much. Steele gets called on the carpet, investigated, and subsequently charged with several crimes. He is ultimately convicted of abductng and intimidating R.M.

The case ended up before Ohio's Supreme Court because Steele appealed, claiming that abducting and intimidating is what cops do, so what's the problem?

To his credit, for the majority, Justice William M. O’Neill answered, with regard to intimidation, "there is no authority for the contention that police officers may use physical force, unlawful threats of harm, or a materially false or fraudulent writing with malice, bad faith, wantonness, or recklessness as part of a legitimate interrogation of a suspect."

With regard to the abduction charge, O'Neill wrote:

The facts underlying Steele’s charge for abduction wereinextricably intertwined with those underlying the charges for intimidation. He took R.M. out of school in handcuffs, placed him in an interrogation room, and blatantly intimidated him with dire threats directed at his entire family, including his school-aged siblings. ...

[T]here is nothing in the record to support the proposition that Steele had anything even approaching probable cause to arrest when he took this youngster out of school in handcuffs.

As a result, Steele is thankfully behind bars for five years, with five additional years of "community control."

Lynch predicts "[t]his case will become part of police training materials in the places where good training programs exist. It will also be taught in law school courses." He points out, though, that Maxton and her family are due some compensation for their ordeal, and that Steele may have left a trail of as-yet undiscovered victims.

TLDR: Have sex with me or your kid goes to jail.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?